Weekday Mass reflections

These reflections have all been written by Fr Frank Doyle (1931-2011)

The author of the Living Space commentaries, Frank Doyle, an Irish Jesuit priest of the Chinese Province, died on Saint Patrick’s Day 2011. After some years working in Ireland, Frank had returned to Asia in 2010, undertaking work as a spiritual director in Manila. His requiem took place in Saint Ignatius Oratory, Loyola House of Studies, Manila on 22 March. May he be on God’s right-hand side.

Week 01 | Monday

Readings - 1 Samuel 1:1-8; Mark 1:14-20

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 1:1-8)

We begin our new year of First Readings with the First Book of Samuel.

The book opens by introducing us to Elkanah, who is obviously a good and religious man, who comes from Rama-thaim. The place was also known as Ramah. It may be the same as the Ramah of Benjamin (cf. Joshua 18:25), which was located in hill country about 8 km (5 miles) north of Jerusalem, near the border between territories of Ephraim and Benjamin.

Elkanah is called an Ephraimite but he was more likely a Levite whose family belonged to the Kohathite clans to whom had been allotted towns in Ephraim. Ephraim lay north of Judah and just north-west of the Dead Sea. Jerusalem was in the territory of Benjamim. (See any good Old Testament map in your Bible.)

According to the custom of the time, he had two wives, Peninnah and Hannah. We first see polygamy enter the Old Testament with Lamech (Gen 4:19). Although the union of Adam and Eve (Gen 2:23-44) seems to endorse monogamy as God’s intention, we know that many of the patriarchs were polygamous and otherwise unfaithful, if not actually promiscuous. We remember how Sarai, the barren wife of Abram, tells her husband to sleep with a slave in order to have a son. Later, of course, Sarah does have a son – Isaac, who will become the patriarch of God’s people. Gen 25:6 mentions the concubines of Abraham.

Penninah had borne several children to her husband but Hannah was barren, perhaps the most shameful and painful experience any married women of those times could have. It was a culture where a woman’s success was measured by her being able to give children, especially sons, to her husband and his family, thus ensuring the continuance of the family line. (Sometimes, of course, it is the husband who is sterile but that is clearly not the situation here.)

Every year Elkanah made a yearly pilgrimage with his family to the shrine at Shiloh and offered sacrifice there. Shiloh, now known as Seilun, is about 19 km (12 miles) south of Nablus, between Bethel and Shechem. It was the home of the ark in the time of Joshua but its sanctuary there was destroyed probably by the Philistines after the defeat mentioned in 1 Sam 4.

Three times a year every Israelite male was required to appear before the Lord at the central sanctuary. The term used here is “Lord of hosts” (or ‘Yahweh of armies’). This alluded not just to the people of Israel but included the stars and other heavenly powers, angels and all cosmic forces – all seen as being under God’s command. This ancient title was associated with the ark, cf. 1 Sam 4:3, the sacred emblem protecting Israel whenever Yahweh waged war with his people on their enemies.

With the establishment of kingship in Israel the term ‘Lord of hosts’ became particularly appropriate as a reference to God as the God of armies – both of the heavenly army and of the army of Israel. Although this is the first recorded use of the title in the Old Testament, it is used freely in the major prophets (with the exception of Ezekiel) and in the Psalms.

The festival referred to here was probably the feast of the Shelters (Tabernacles), which not only commemorated God’s care for his people during the desert journey to Canaan but more especially celebrated, with joy and feasting, God’s blessing on the year’s crops. On such festive occasions Hannah’s deep sorrow because of her own barrenness was the more poignant.

On that day when he would offer sacrifice, Elkanah would give portions to Penninah and the children she had borne but a double portion to Hannah, because “although the Lord had made her barren”, he loved her more. Children were seen primarily as a gift from God.* The ‘sacrifice’ here refers to one which was combined with a festive meal, signifying fellowship and communion with the Lord and gratitude for his mercies.

Penninah would mock and jeer at Hannah’s barrenness and this situation went on year after year.

So, stricken with shame and distress, Hannah refused to eat. Elkanah, who was clearly a good and compassionate man, tried to console her by reminding her that she had a loving husband, and was he not worth more to her than “ten sons”?

As we shall see, God is not going to abandon two such very good people. And so the stage is set for something very special to happen.

It is easy for us sometimes to regret that God has not given us some gift which we would dearly love to have. Perhaps, too, we have become the object of people’s mockery or criticism and asked “Why did God do that to me?” Yet God is working in our lives and we need to ask him to help us see where, even in our deficiencies, his love and grace are at work in us. We may be in for some pleasant surprises.

Let us then learn to light one candle rather than curse the darkness.

* There is a discrepancy in the texts: the Jerusalem Bible says that Elkanah gave several portions to his wife, Peninnah, and her children but only one to Hannah, because God had made her barren. However, the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible both say that Elkanah gave a double portion to Hannah, even though she was barren, because he loved her more. Both texts, however, agree that Elkanah loved Hannah more than Penninah.

GOSPEL (Mark 1:14-20)

Today we begin our readings from Mark’s gospel and we will be following him for the next several weeks.

Today’s reading follows immediately on the short accounts of Jesus’ baptism and temptations in the desert that Mark gives. It is the beginning of his public ministry. The reading consists of two main parts – a summary of Jesus’ teaching and the first response to it.

As the passage opens we are told that John has been arrested (the reason for his arrest will be given later). The word for ‘arrest’ is literally ‘handed over’, a key word which will be used later of Jesus himself, his disciples and indeed of many others down the centuries. The term is also used in our Eucharist when the celebrant at the consecration says: “This is my Body which will be given up for you.” Our translation of ‘given up’ represents the Latin word tradetur which literally means ‘handed over’. Jesus is daily handed over to us, or rather, he hands himself over to us and expects us to do the same for our brothers and sisters.

Jesus begins his ministry by proclaiming the Gospel, the Good News, of God. It is summed up in the words: “The time (kairos) has come and the Kingdom is close at hand. Repent and believe in the Good News.” It is a deceptively simple statement which, in fact, is rich in meaning. One can say that the whole of the Gospel message is contained in those two sentences.

We may comment on the following words:

- kairos

- kingdom

- repent

- believe in.

The time of fulfilment: this is a translation of the Greek word kairos (kairos). Kairos refers to a moment when something is ripe to happen, it is a serendipitous moment. And that exactly describes the appearance of Jesus, an appearance which the whole of the Old Covenant has been preparing for and leading up to.

The Kingdom of God is at hand: The whole of Jesus’ message centres round the idea of the ‘Kingdom of God’. It was the coming of that Kingdom which he proclaimed; it was the core of his teaching. Because of Matthew’s use of the term ‘Kingdom of heaven’, there is a possibility that we think of the ‘Kingdom’ as only belonging to the life after death. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The word ‘Kingdom’ translates the Greek word basileia (basileia), an abstract noun which is better rendered as ‘kingship’ or ‘reign’. Kingdom here does not refer to a place. It points to the ruling power of God, a power based above all on love. Wherever the love of God prevails in our world we can say that the Kingdom is there. Love essentially involves other people so the Kingdom is not a place or an action but a complex of harmonious and interacting relationships. Jesus came to call every single person to belong to such a world.

We need to emphasise that the Kingdom and the Church or the Kingdom and Christianity do not coincide. The role of the Church is to be a sacrament of the Kingdom. It fulfils that role with varying degrees of success. There are Kingdom people everywhere, that is, people who base their lives on love and justice, on peace and freedom who are not Christians at all – but they are Kingdom people because their lives reflect the spirit of God. Similarly, mere membership of a Christian group does not guarantee one is a Kingdom person

Repent…: Here we have the basic steps needed to become fully a Kingdom person. First, we need to repent. This is the most common translation of the Greek verb of the word metanoia (metanoia). It is not a very happy rendering. ‘Repent’ means for most people being sorry for something done in the past. That is not excluded here but metanoia looks much more to the future. Metanoia really means a radical change in one’s thinking, in this case, about the meaning and purpose of life and how that life is to be lived. Jesus is calling here for a radical conversion and to take on board his vision of life.

…and believe in the Gospel: And how is that metanoia to be achieved? By believing in the Gospel. For many Christians, belief means the total acceptance of the teachings of Christ as interpreted for us by the Church. But something more is asked of us here. We are asked not just to believe but to believe IN. It is one thing to believe something as true but it may not affect our lives very much. But in calling on us to believe IN the message that the Gospel brings, we are being asked for a total investment of ourselves and not just in accepting doctrines as true. We are being called on to living our lives and patterning them on the model of Jesus himself. Again, we will see what that entails as we go through the Gospel in coming weeks.

The second part of the reading gives us a dramatic example of some people who did just what Jesus was asking for. As Jesus walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother, Andrew, who were fishermen, casting their nets into the sea. They were doing their daily work. Jesus said to them: “Come after me and I will make you fishers of people.” There and then, they dropped their nets, their whole means of livelihood and went after Jesus. A little further on Jesus saw two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who were mending their nets. These two Jesus also called. They promptly left their father in the boat with his hired men and followed Jesus. Later Jesus will say, “if you love father, mother more than me you cannot be a disciple”.

Here we have that metanoia, that radical change of life, taking place. They follow Jesus with total trust. As they go off, they have no idea where they are going or what it will entail. They believe IN Jesus, put all their trust in him. They were to meet many trials and tribulations on the way but they never regretted the step they took. Only by following their example will we too have the same experience. The only guarantee we have is that those who did take Jesus’ call seriously and lived it out to the full know that they made the right choice.

Finally, we might say that this story is to be read as a kind of parable. Because we know that later on the disciples will still be in contact with their families and those boats will appear several times in the Gospel story. What is being emphasised here is the total commitment to the Way and vision of Jesus which is symbolised by the total abandoning of the boats and family members.

+++

Week 01 | Tuesday

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 1:9-20)

We find Hannah, the barren wife of Elkanah, still at the Lord’s central sanctuary in Shiloh. The sanctuary is also referred to in 1 Samuel as the “Lord’s temple” and as “the house of the Lord” or “the Tent of Meeting” and “my dwelling”. There references to the sanctuary as a “house” and a “temple” as well mention of “sleeping quarters” and “doors”. This suggests that at this time the sanctuary or ‘tabernacle’ was a larger, more permanent building.

While Eli the priest sat near the door, Hannah prayed in tears to God begging to have her shame removed. She asks the Lord to “remember” her. This is not simply to be aware of her existence but to go into action on her behalf.

She was making a vow that, if God gave her a male child, she would dedicate him entirely to God’s service for the whole of his life. This was in contrast to the normal period of service for Levites, which was from the ages of 25 to 50. Her offer of her son to Yahweh is similar to promises made with Isaac, Samson and John the Baptist where God was seen to intervene in the birth. Hannah’s child, Samuel, born of a barren mother would – like them – be dedicated to service in the sanctuary. As with Samson, too, leaving the hair uncut would be a sign of dedication to the Lord, although there is no mention here of Samson as a ‘nazirite’. The nazirite vow was normally taken for a limited time rather than for life, as is happening here. Also, the son that Hannah seeks will, like Samson, drink neither wine nor liquor.

Hannah prayed in this way for a long time in silence though her lips moved. Since people usually prayed out loud, Eli thought she was drunk. Heavy drinking was apparently not unusual on the occasion of big feasts. He told her severely to sober up and stop making a show of herself. She asked him not to think badly of her; she was not drunk, only deeply unhappy as she begged the Lord to hear her prayer.

Eli, seeing the true situation, then sent her off with a lovely blessing: “Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked him.” She only asked him in return to think more kindly of her.

After going back home, she ate with her husband and experienced a kind of peace. The next day they went once more to the sanctuary to pray and then returned to their home in Ramah. And now, when Elkanah had intercourse with Hannah, “the Lord remembered her”, as she had asked him. She conceived and gave birth to a boy, whom “she named Samuel, since she had asked the Lord for him”. A derivation from the root sha’al (to ask) would give sha’ul from which one gets the name Saul. However, biblical etymology was often, as here, content with an approximate similarity of sound. The actual derivation of ‘Samuel’ is from Shem-El, ‘the name of God’ or ‘(God’s) name is El’.

This story is one of a number in the Bible where barren women are given children by God’s intervention. In every case, the child has a calling to serve God in a very special way. Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah was one of these as was Samson, who helped God’s people defeat the Philistines. Much later, Elizabeth will give birth to John the Baptist although well past child-bearing age. He too will be dedicated to God in a special way.

Mary, too, under special circumstances will give birth to Jesus through God’s intervention. We will see later how Samuel will become a prophet of the Lord and be involved with the career of David as king.

Perhaps our birth has not been accompanied by such special circumstances, yet each one of us is, in a special kind of way, a gift from God to our parents and each one of us has a calling, a vocation, to serve him and our brothers and sisters in a unique way.

Let us identify with that call and, with God’s help, try to respond to it as well as we can.

GOSPEL (Mark 1:21b-28)

Today’s passage is the first part of a day in the life of Jesus in which he carries out the main activities of his mission – teaching and healing. He goes to Capernaum, the centre of much of his work, and on a Sabbath day, like every observant Jew, goes to the synagogue. And, like any Jews who wishes to do so, he addresses the congregation.

He begins to teach the people. Much of Jesus’ work will consist of teaching, of communicating his message, his vision of life. People are deeply impressed because, unlike the Scribes, he speaks with authority. The Scribes could only interpret, give the meaning of the Scripture. Jesus spoke in his own right. Jesus speaks in the best tradition of the great prophets. But there is more. Jesus’ authority is empowering and liberating, it is not oppressive or subjugating. He will say in John’s gospel: “The truth will make you free.”

Right there in the synagogue was a man possessed by an “unclean” spirit. It was called ‘unclean’ because of its basic resistance to the holiness of God. This was a world where many unexplained symptoms in people were attributed to evil powers and were often believed to be the punishment for sinful behaviour. The spirit resented the presence of Jesus. “I know who you are: the Holy One of God”. It was believed that, by giving a hostile spirit its exact name, one could have power over him. But Jesus silences the evil spirit and tells it to come out of the man, who experiences a kind of fit and cries out.

Again the people are amazed at the power and authority of this man Jesus. He has new teaching and can give orders to evil spirits. The question is being asked: “Just who is this man?” It is a question that is the underlying theme of the first half of this gospel.

It for us to submit ourselves to the same empowering authority of Jesus, to listen to his teaching by steeping ourselves in his Gospel message and experiencing his healing and liberation in our lives.

+++

Week 01 | Wednesday

Readings

1 Samuel 3:1-10,19-20; Mark 1:29-39

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 3:1-10,19-20)

The call of Samuel as prophet.

Samuel is now a young boy, serving the priest Eli in the sanctuary at Shiloh. The Jewish historian Josephus places his age at 12 years; he may have been older. What follows is heightened by the statement that revelations and visions of God were at that time very infrequent. The books of Judges, which cover this period, indicate that very few prophets, or messengers of God appeared.

During the entire period of the Judges, apart from the anonymous prophet mentioned in chap. 2 (not covered in the liturgical readings), we are told of only two prophets and of five revelations.

We are told that one day Eli was asleep in his usual place in the sanctuary. He had recently become blind. The “lamp of God was not yet extinguished”. The reference is to the golden lampstand, which stood opposite the table of the bread of the Presence in the Holy Place. It was still night, but the early morning hours were approaching when the flame grew dim or went out. For the lamp to be permitted to go out before morning was a violation of the Pentateuchal regulations.

It is at this moment when God calls Samuel. Samuel, in his sleep, hears his name being called. Still inexperienced in recognising the presence of the Lord, he thinks that Eli is calling him. Twice he hears the call and twice Eli denies that he called. Eli’s own failure not at once to recognise God’s voice may be indicative that he was not very close to God. In fact, he was not very effective as a prophet (cf. 1 Sam 2:22-26).

At the third call, Eli begins to realise that something special is going on. He sends the boy back to bed and tells him that the next time he hears a call he is to answer, “Speak, Lord, your servant is listening.” And the Lord does call a third time and Samuel responds as he was told. Now the Lord reveals his presence but what the Lord said to him at that time is not recorded. However, by this first revelation Samuel is consecrated a prophet. It was not a dream: the voice awakened Samuel. Nor was it a ‘vision’ except in the wide sense, since Samuel heard but did not see Yahweh.

We are told that, from then on, the Lord was with Samuel and his words were always spoken and listened to with effect. He was a true and reliable prophet who faithfully transmitted the word of the Lord. Throughout the country from Dan to Beersheba, that is, from the very north to the south, Samuel was recognised as a prophet of the Lord.

There are two possible reflections for us in this reading.

We might ask ourselves how often has the Lord called us and we have mistaken it for something else or not heard it at all? Yet, through people and experiences in our daily life, God is constantly calling us to his love and service and to come close to him. Let us be alert this day to any calls he may make.

Second, by our baptism we, too, are in a special way called to be prophets, that is, to be bearers of the Gospel message through our words and actions. How will people come to know Christ and the Gospel if not through us?

GOSPEL (Mark 1:29-39)

We continue from yesterday’s reading, following a day in the public life of Jesus. It was still the Sabbath and, after the synagogue service, Jesus now goes to the house of his two disciples, Simon and Andrew in Capernaum. (As it was the Sabbath, people could not go very far or do anything which could be labelled ‘work’.)

In the house Jesus finds Peter’s mother-in-law confined to bed because of a fever. When he is told about it, he immediately goes to see her, takes her by the hand, lifts her up and heals her. Immediately, she gets up and begins to serve them. This is not simply because that is the role of a woman in the home. Rather it is a way of saying that it is the role of the whole Christian – man or woman – to serve. Healing is not just to make one well but to enable one to become again an active, serving member of the community.

In the evening, once the Sabbath was over, people were free to move around. So large numbers come seeking out Jesus to be healed of their sicknesses and to be freed from the power of evil spirits. “The whole town was gathered at the door.” That is the door of the house where Jesus was. Many times we will see a reference to the “house” where Jesus is. It seems to be a symbol of the place where Jesus is gathered with those who are close to him, a symbol of a Christian community, of the church. When the poor and the sick and unfree no longer come to the doors of our community seeking healing and wholeness, we need to reflect on the quality of our Christian witness.

The following morning, Jesus leaves, goes to the hills to be alone and to pray. His disciples come in search of him. “Everyone is looking for you,” they tell him. Although there are many demands being made on him by the people of Capernaum, Jesus

a. needs time for himself to renew his spiritual energy and be in contact with his Father, and

b. has to think of the needs of other people as well.

Jesus may have been the Son of God but he could only be in one place at a time and, during those three years of public life, he really only reached a very small number of people. To reach the rest, he needed and still needs our help.

When Jesus returns from his prayer he does not go back to Capernaum, although there were certainly more people to be healed and helped there. Instead he went on to synagogues all over Galilee proclaiming his message of the Kingdom and making it a reality by healing the sick and liberating those controlled by evil forces.

This scene brings up the importance for us of availability. We do need to be available to all those who are in genuine need. At the same time, there is what we might call the ‘poverty of availability’. No matter how generous and self-giving we are we can only give so much. We need to find a balance between people’s needs and our limited resources. We do not help people by working ourselves to the point of ‘burnout’. We also need ‘quality time’ to be with God, to pray and to reflect on our priorities. Jesus gives us an excellent example here.

+++

Week 01 | Thursday

Readings

1 Samuel 4:1-11; Mark 1:40-45

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 4:1-11)

Our story digresses somewhat with this reading which is really centred on the Ark of the Covenant. It is linked with what we have read so far by the mention of Shiloh and Eli and his sons. Samuel does not appear. The overall context, including the Philistines, is more like that of the Samson story.

It introduces the Philistines as the “bad guys” who are having it all their own way – at this stage. Although, as usual, there is an implication that the Israelites are only getting their deserts for their infidelities before Yahweh.

The passage begins by our being told that the Israelites had encamped at Ebenezer to repel a planned attack on them by the Philistines who were encamped at Aphek. The location of Ebenezer (the name means ‘stone of help’) is not now known but it is presumed that it was probably not very far to the east of Aphek and not to be confused with the place of a stone, called Ebenezer, erected by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines (see 1 Sam 7:12). Aphek was in northern Philistine territory, about 20 km (12 miles) northeast of the coastal city of Joppa (Jaffa). Philistine presence this far north suggests they were attempting to spread their control over the Israelite tribes of central Canaan.

A fierce battle between the Philistines and the Israelites near Aphek ended in a disastrous defeat for the Israelites in which 4,000 were killed. The leaders immediately see in the defeat a message from God. “Why has the Lord permitted us to be defeated today by the Philistines [infidels that they are]?” The elders understood that their defeat was more an indication of God’s displeasure than it was of Philistine military superiority. Israel’s pagan neighbours also believed that the outcome of battle was decided by the gods. Things – both good and bad – never happen simply by chance in the Bible.

In an attempt to secure the Lord’s closer presence with them in the struggle against the Philistines, the elders sent for the Ark of the Covenant. They were correct in thinking there was a connection between God’s presence with his people and the Ark and no doubt they remembered the presence of the Ark at notable victories in Israel’s past history. But they incorrectly believed that the Lord’s presence with the Ark would also produce the results they wanted. They reflected the pagan notion that the deity was fully identified with the symbol of his presence and that God’s support could automatically be guaranteed by manipulating the symbol.

The Ark of the Covenant was brought from the sanctuary in Shiloh, the “ark of the Lord of Hosts, who is enthroned upon the cherubim”. We know that on each end of the atonement cover of the Ark were golden cherubim with their wings spread upward over the Ark (see Exod 25:17-22). In the space between these cherubim God’s presence with his people was localised in a special way, so that the atonement cover of the ark came to be viewed as the throne of Israel’s divine King (see 2 Sam 6:2; Ps 80:1; 99:1).

The Israelites carried the Ark with them into battle. They were fully confident that with God’s presence among them, they would not be defeated this time. It did not actually help that the Ark was accompanied by the two wicked sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas. Among other misdemeanours, these had been in the habit of appropriating sacrificial offerings in the temple for themselves (1 Sam 2:12-17). Here too, they are using the Ark in a way which reduced it to the level of a pagan charm. For such desecrations they would pay a high price. When the Ark arrived among them, the people sent up such a war cry that the Philistines were alarmed. Such a war cry was, in fact, part of the Ark ritual. And when the Philistines realised that the Ark was actually present, they were even more afraid. “A god has come into the camp,” they said. Like the Israelites, they identified the Ark with the actual presence of a god. They knew well that it was the God of Israel which had brought on the plagues in Egypt and rescued the Israelites from slavery. “Who can deliver us from the power of these mighty gods?” The Philistines could think only in polytheistic terms.

Their only hope was to fight with everything they had. If they lost they would become the slaves of the Israelites as the Israelites had once been their slaves. In spite of the presence of the Ark, there was another disastrous defeat for the Israelites in which 30,000 died (probably an inflated figure to emphasise the calamity of the defeat). And, what was worse, the Ark of the Covenant was carried off by the victors. This phrase, or a variation of it, occurs five times in the full story, making this the focal point of the narrative. Both this and the deaths of Hophni and Phinehas, the wicked sons of Eli, were cryptically foretold to Samuel (1 Sam 3:11-12). It is perfectly clear that the defeat was punishment for sins which even the presence of the Ark could not avert.

There is a frankness about this story which is refreshing. The expected, stereotyped, triumphalistic ending does not materialise. Perhaps the mistake of the Israelites was to identify the presence of God with the Ark itself so that they used it as a kind of charm or talisman to scare their enemies. Superstitious though they were – the Israelites ruse nearly worked – the Philistines in desperation set aside their superstitious fears, used the resources they had and won the victory.

It is possible for us Christians (and especially Catholics) to behave like the Israelites. We can identify the statue, or the picture, or the medal with the person they represent and endow with them with a kind of magic power by which we think we can manipulate not only events and other people but even God himself. But God must always remain utterly free. It is not for us to manipulate him but to know what his will is and to accept it, on the principle that God always wants what is best for us (although it may not, in the short term, seem like that). We pray to Our Lady and the saints not to tell them to twist God’s arm on our behalf but to help us, to be like them and to accept God’s will in all things.

GOSPEL (Mark 1:40-45)

This healing story does not actually belong to that “Day in the life of Jesus” which we reflected on over the past two days.

Lepers were among the most piteous of people in scriptural times. Although little was known of the origin of the sickness, it was clearly known to be contagious and therefore greatly feared. The only solution was to isolate the victim and not allow him/her to approach people. So, apart from the appalling physical disintegration of body and limbs, there was the social ostracism, the contempt and the fear which the victim engendered.

What was probably even more tragic was that many who were branded as lepers were suffering from some other ailment, which may not have been contagious at all – such as ulcers, cancer or other skin diseases (some of them perhaps purely psychosomatic). The signs for diagnosis are given in chapter 13 of the Book of Leviticus and, by our standards today, are rather primitive indeed. The room for a wrong diagnosis was huge. It was a question of being safe rather than sorry.

The leper in the story indicates his great faith and trust in Jesus, a necessary and sufficient condition for healing in the Gospel. “If you wish, you can make me clean,” he says. He knows this because he has undoubtedly seen or heard of what others have experienced.

Jesus is filled with a deep sense of compassion for the man’s plight. Highlighting the emotional feelings of Jesus is a characteristic of Mark’s gospel and is seldom found in Matthew. What Jesus feels is compassion not just pity. In pity we feel sorry for the person; in compassion, we enter into the feelings of the other, we empathise with their experience. And in doing so Jesus does the unthinkable – he reaches out to touch the leper. This must have been a healing act in itself. The leper was by definition untouchable. “I do will it.” says Jesus, “Be made clean.” The man is immediately healed.

But that is not the end of the story because the man has still to be reintegrated into the community – this is the second part of the healing process. He is told to go to the priests to make the customary offering of thanksgiving. They will examine him and then pronounce him fit to re-enter society.

He is also told not to say anything to anyone about it. Jesus wanted no sensationalism. But how could the man refrain from telling everybody about his wonderful experience of coming in contact with the whole-making power of Jesus? He becomes an ardent evangeliser, a spreader of good news – something we are all called to be.

What is the outcome of our experience of knowing Jesus? How come we do not have the enthusiasm of this man? It is worth noting that that experience was the result of his first having been the victim of a terrible cross. It is often in our crosses that grace appears.

Once again, Jesus goes out into the desert to avoid the enthusiastic crowds. Jesus was not interested in having “fans”, only genuine followers. He would not be ready until his full identity was recognised. That would only happen as he hung dying on the cross (Mark 15:39)

Before we leave this story, we may ask who are the lepers in our society today? One very obvious group are those who have contracted contagious diseases like HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases which are becoming ever more widespread. Even though these are of little danger to most people who have no physical contact, the victims are often rejected in fear or disgust or embarrassment by family members, friends, employers, colleagues, even medical people.

There are also people like homosexuals. If many of them are not lepers it is simply because they dare not reveal their orientation. They dare not do so because they are most likely to be “leper-ised” by even family and friends. There are other marginal groups – nomadic groups like Romanies, drug addicts, poor single mothers, the homeless, alcoholics... Indeed, we have many lepers among us. Let us examine our attitudes today and revise them if necessary.

+++

Week 01 | Friday

Readings

1 Samuel 8:4-7,10-22; Mark 2:1-12

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 8:4-7,10-22)

Samuel – the democratic republican! We begin reading today about Samuel and his involvement with Saul and the institution of the monarchy in Israel.

The institution of the monarchy was a major turning point of Israel’s political and religious history. The sanctuary of the ark of Shiloh had been destroyed and unity was in danger as the Philistine threat increased. A section of the people began asking for a king “such as other nations have’” but others held the opposite view that Yahweh, Israel’s only lord, should be left to provide leaders as circumstances required, as he had done in the days of the Judges.

These two schools of thought find a voice in anti-royalist (ch. 8; 10:17-24; 12) and royalist (9:1-10:16; 11) versions of the institution of the monarchy, here placed side by side. The royalist view (which we will see tomorrow) will ultimately prevail, but Saul, the first king, is scarcely distinguishable from the judges who preceded him. The monarchy will only achieve its full development in David. He is one of the outstanding characters of the whole Bible and in him the religious and civil functions of the Israelite monarchy will be harmoniously combined. He will be able to combine his political responsibilities with his service of the Lord. However, none of his successors will achieve this ideal. David, and really David alone (in spite of his serious weaknesses), remains the model of the future King through whom God is to bring about the salvation of his people, namely the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed of the Lord.

As today’s reading opens we find the elders of the people approaching Samuel and telling him that, in view of his old age (and, it might be added, the corrupt behaviour of his sons) they should have a king. It soon becomes apparent, however, that the more basic reason for their request was a desire to be like the surrounding nations – to have a human king as a symbol of national power and unity who would lead them in battle and guarantee their security. As a loose conglomerate of tribes they would never be able to deal effectively with their enemies (who had kings). Israel had suffered a number of calamitous defeats at the hands of its old nemesis, the Philistines, and the people saw that what was needed was a powerful leader as a strong unifying and rallying point.

There were two reactions to this innovation of having a king – one against and one in favour. Some would say they were forgetting that they were not like other nations. By their desire to appoint a human king they were, in a way, setting aside their real Lord. Israel had always been a theocracy where only God was its King and Lord and the idea of a human king seemed almost blasphemous. On the other hand, there were those who, for political reasons and even for the people’s survival, emphasised the need for a single, strong ruler.

In today’s reading we see the anti-royalist view, while tomorrow the royalist arguments will be put forward. The misgivings of the anti-royalists are seen in Samuel’s displeasure at the people asking for a king. God, too, is not happy but tells Samuel to let the people have their way: “It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king.” The sin of Israel in requesting a king did not rest in any evil inherent in kingship itself, but rather in the kind of kingship the people envisioned and their reasons for requesting it.

Their desire was for a form of kingship that denied their covenant relationship with the Lord, who himself was pledged to be their saviour and deliverer. In requesting a king “like all other nations” they broke the covenant, rejected the Lord, who was their King and forgot his constant provision for their protection in the past.

In a rather sarcastic tone, Samuel proceeds to tell the people all the “advantages” that will accrue to them by having a king. His description reflects not so much what happened under Saul or David but in a later period, beginning with Solomon, and reflects the bitter experience of the writer’s own generation. Later on, we will see how terrible some of those kings really were.

Samuel warns them that having a king will reduce them to virtual slavery:

Their sons will become the king’s charioteers and minions

They will become ‘war fodder’ to fight his battles for him

They will become serfs on their own land

They will become weapon makers for the king’s armies

They will become labourers to provide his needs

He will commandeer their vineyards and olive groves and give them out to his favourite eunuchs and slaves

He will take over their best servants and all their herds for his own use.

He will tax them to the point of reducing them to slaves.

Then – and only then – will the people complain to God but it will be too late. They have made their own bed and will have to sleep in it. Only the king will enjoy rights; the people will have duties and obligations. In fact, the demands of the king would parallel all that Israel was expected to consecrate to the Lord as her Great King (persons, lands, crops, livestock) – even the whole population. But now it going to be given to a very fallible – and sometimes – wicked human being.

For now, the people will not listen to Samuel’s arguments. They are determined to have a king like their neighbours who will lead them to war and fight their battles. And God said: “Let them have their way.” Samuel is told to appoint someone as king and he tells the people to go back to their own cities and towns.

We, too, can be very insistent in asking God to give us something we feel we really need. Yet, when it comes we may bitterly regret the consequences. Sometimes what we take to be the answer to a prayer may only be the fruit of our own persistence. But, whatever happens, wherever our choices have led us, God is always there and it is always in our present situation, in the here-and-now, that we must learn to respond to his call. Even our mistakes can become moments of grace and enlightenment.

GOSPEL (Mark 2:1-12)

After some days Jesus returns to Capernaum from his refuge in the desert. Immediately the crowds gather in and around the house where he is staying. It is so crowded that there is no room to get in or out. The ‘house’ is not identified and it is not important. In the early Christian communities, they gathered in one house to celebrate the Eucharist. Jesus was there among them. Some people are inside the house with Jesus, others are still on the outside.

Then, four men arrived carrying a paralytic friend. They were anxious to get to Jesus.

Seeing no way in, they went up by the outside staircase on to the flat roof, removed a few tiles and let the man down right at the feet of Jesus.

Jesus is touched by their faith, trust and confidence in him. It is one of the essential conditions for healing. Jesus says to the paralysed man, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” This must have come as a surprising statement to the paralytic. He had come for healing, not forgiveness. Some scribes who were also present where not only surprised they were deeply shocked. “Why does this man [note the level of contempt] speak that way? Only God can forgive sins.” They are perfectly right but their eyes are closed to drawing the obvious conclusion. They don’t see because they do not want to see, because – even worse – they think they can see. (We meet Christians like that too, who are convinced they and they alone are in sole possession of the ‘truth’.)

Jesus then challenges them. “Which is easier to say: ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Get up, pick up your bed and walk’.” Then he tells the sick man, “Rise, pick up your mat and go home.” Of course, telling a person their sins are forgiven is certainly easier but does the fact that Jesus could heal the paralytic instantly, also mean that his sins were forgiven?

We need to realise the close links the Jews of the time made between sin and sickness. Many kinds of sickness were seen as punishment for personal sin or even the sins of parents. (See the story of the man born blind in John’s gospel, chap. 9.) This man then was understood to be paralysed because of some sin in his life. If Jesus could clearly remove the illness, then the cause of the illness was also being taken away. In so doing, Jesus makes it clear that in forgiving the man’s sin he was not blaspheming. He was what he claimed to be.

In these times, we are beginning to realise that there can be a link between our sicknesses and the way we act and relate with people. We know that there is a mutual influence between our thinking and our attitudes, feelings and behaviour. Many sicknesses are known to be psychosomatic, the result of stress or an imbalance in our relationships with others, our work, our environment. The words holiness, wholeness, health and healing all have a common root. The whole person, one in whom all parts are in perfect harmony, is the truly holy person.

That wholeness is something we need to pray and work for. The paralysed man represents all those who are paralysed in other ways, who are not able to behave with the freedom that a well-integrated person has. And that integration and wholeness concerns our relations with others, with ourselves, with our environment and, of course, with God.

+++

Week 01 | Saturday

Readings

1 Samuel 9:1-4,17-19;10:1; Mark 2:13-17

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 9:1-4,17-19;10:1)

Today we hear about the choice of Saul as Israel’s first king. Here, in contrast to yesterday, the attitude towards monarchy is much more positive. It represents the royalist view. Today’s narrative has, in fact, nothing to do with yesterday’s where we saw a negative view of monarchy. Saul, the king-to-be, is the central figure. Samuel is presented as a prophet whom Saul meets apparently by chance.

Here, the monarchy is seen as something willed by God and Saul is clearly God’s choice as the first king.

We are introduced to Saul as the son of Kish and belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes and named after Jacob’s youngest son. His name means “asked for [from God]”. He is presented as having qualities suitable to his future role: young, handsome and a commanding figure, well above average in height.

The hand of God is now seen as events unfold. The donkeys of Saul’s father, Kish, had wandered off somewhere and Saul was sent by his father to bring them back. It is perhaps symbolic that Saul is presented as a handler of donkeys, which tended to stray far from home.  He is, after all, going to be the king of a rebellious people. On the other hand, David will be introduced as a shepherd, taking care of his father’s flock and will later, as king, be pictured as the shepherd of the Lord’s flock. As such, too, he will be a prototype of Jesus.

Saul’s search brought him a long distance and finally, not having found the donkeys, he suggested to his servants that they turn back. But one servant says there is a “seer of God” in the city and that perhaps he can help them find the lost animals. “Good idea!” says Saul and, with the help of some girls drawing water at a well, they are pointed in the right direction. (These details are omitted from our reading.)

The apparently accidental encounter between Saul and Samuel is clearly presented (in the full text) as something clearly planned by God. When they first meet, Saul does not recognise the prophet. Samuel, for his part, has already been told by God that this Benjaminite has been specially chosen to lead God’s people and save them from the hands of the Philistines.

On the morning of the following day, at a designated rendezvous, they meet and go to a place outside the city. Then, having dismissed Saul’s servants, Samuel pours oil on Saul’s head and kisses him. At the same time he gives Saul his mandate: “The Lord anoints you commander over his heritage. You are to govern the Lord’s people Israel, and to save them from the grasp of their enemies roundabout.” The Lord’s “heritage” includes both the people and the land.

After departing from Samuel, Saul will receive three signs (in the passage immediately following the end of today’s reading) to authenticate the prophet’s words and to assure him that the Lord has indeed chosen him to be king.

In our lives, too, we can see apparently chance events leading us into certain, sometimes very unexpected, situations. While we should not see God as simply manipulating events in an arbitrary way, we can say that in every experience we have, in every person we meet, God is communicating something to us. Let us recall some of those events today and how we responded (or did not respond) to them.

It is for us to discern what God is saying and where he wants us to go and what choices he wants us to make arising out of every experience. It calls for a pro-active and not simply a re-active response.

GOSPEL (Mark 2:13-17)

Jesus certainly chose some very strange people to be his followers. Levi was a tax collector, one of a much despised group of people. The Romans did not collect taxes themselves from their subject people. Local people paid a lump sum to the Romans and they had the right to recoup their deposit in taxes. Of course, they had to make a profit and this laid the system open to widespread abuse and corruption. They were regarded as both traitors to their own people in collecting taxes for Rome, the hated colonial power. They and their families were social outcasts. No self-respecting and observant Jew would have anything to do with such people.

Yet, here is Jesus offering one such person an invitation, “Follow me.” We need to know that Jesus never goes by stereotypes. Nor does he judge people by their past behaviour. He is only interested in what they can be now and in the future. There and then, Levi drops everything and goes after Jesus. That is what following Jesus means. It is what Peter and Andrew, James and John had also done.

Later, when Jesus is dining at “his” house, several known sinners and tax collectors are at table with Jesus and his disciples. The ‘his’ is (deliberately?) ambiguous. Is it the house of Levi or the house of Jesus? In either case, it is very meaningful. Jesus eats in a sinner’s house or he invites a sinner to eat in his house. Perhaps they are celebrating Levi’s becoming a follower. And who else could Levi have invited if not the only people who would mix with him – other tax collectors and outcasts? But, in addition the Gospel comments that, “There were many of them [tax collectors and their like] among Jesus’ followers”.

This is was a real source of scandal for the scribes and Pharisees. If Jesus really was a Rabbi he would have had nothing to do with such people. To sit down and eat with such “unclean” people was to be contaminated oneself. Jesus replies: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. I did not come to call the virtuous but sinners.”

As we have already seen, Jesus’ whole mission is one of salvation and redemption of restoring people to wholeness. And how is he to help sinners change, unless he is in direct contact with them? By being with sinners, Jesus is not approving or condoning or turning a blind eye to their behaviour. He describes them as “sick”; they are in need of healing and rehabilitation. This can only be done by reaching out to them.

Of course, one can ask if those judging Jesus were not also sick and in need of healing themselves. The difference was that the ‘sinners’ approached Jesus; while the Pharisees could not see or acknowledge their particular kind of sin and consequent need of healing.

Perhaps our Church should look more closely at this passage. So much of our Church work involves “servicing” the already converted or the semi-converted. We are often not present where people are most in need of hearing the Gospel message. We tend to side with the Pharisees and feel we should keep away from the ‘sinful’ and the ‘immoral’.

We also need to learn the ways by which the Gospel message and the Gospel vision can most effectively be communicated to those who have lost touch with God and the meaning of life.

Week 02 | Monday

Readings: 1 Samuel 15:16-23; Matthew 2:18-22

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 15:16-23)

Today we see Saul rejected by Yahweh as king. In fact, Yahweh regrets ever having made Saul king. This is a very anthropomorphic image of God where he admits to making mistakes. The Old Testament also presents God as angry, jealous and vengeful but these are really projections of the Israelites’ own feelings, making God to be very much like themselves.

Although Saul had carried out his mandate to defeat the Amalekites, enemies of Israel, he displeased God because he and his men used the victory to plunder and gather all the spoils to themselves. Saul tried to justify his behaviour by claiming that the best of the sheep and oxen seized by his men would be sacrificed to God.

But Samuel enunciates the very important principle that obedience to God’s will transcends any religious rituals – and that is the central point of today’s reading.

“Truly, obedience is better than sacrifice,

submissiveness than the fat of rams.

Rebellion is a sin of sorcery,

presumption a crime of idolatry (teraphim).”

In so speaking, Samuel is not condemning sacrificial practise as such but that ritual which is not accompanied by appropriate behaviour in our relationships with God and others is of no value (cf. Is 1:11-17; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-27; Mic 6:6-8). To act against God’s known will while doing homage to something which is not of God (e.g. personal greed in this case) is to be guilty of a kind of idolatry (worship of Mammon). Saul’s crime is likened to ‘sorcery’, called here, “the crime of teraphim”. Teraphim were the household gods, which guarded houses and property. (For an interesting use of a household idol, see 1 Sam 19:11ff.)

Submissiveness to God’s will too is better than “the fat of rams”. The fat of sacrificed animals always belonged to the Lord. Samuel speaks of “rebellion”. He is charging Saul with violating the central requirement of the covenant condition, when he became king. Speaking earlier to the people he had said: “If you fear the Lord and worship him, if you are obedient to him and do not rebel against the Lord’s command, if both you and the king who rules you follow the Lord your God – well and good. But if you do not obey the Lord and if you rebel against his command, the Lord will deal severely with you and your king, and destroy you” (1 Sam 12:14-15)

Now Samuel tells Saul, “You have rejected the word of the Lord.” A king who set his own will above the command of the Lord ceases to be an instrument of the Lord’s rule over his people, violating the very nature of his office, where he is a vice-gerent of God.

And so the Lord “has rejected you as king”. Already Saul had been told, because of a previous incident (chap 13), that his dynasty would not last because he had disobeyed the will of the Lord. Here the judgement goes beyond the earlier one. Now Saul himself is to be set aside as king. Although this did not happen immediately, as chs. 16-31 show, the process was under way which would lead to his death. It included in its relentless course the removal of God’s Spirit and favour from him (16:14), the defection of his son Jonathan and daughter Michal to David, and the insubordination of his own officials.

In summary, the reading is saying that to appease or manipulate God by using sacrifices in this way was tantamount to superstition and idolatry. For his disobedience, God now rejects Saul as king. The effects will not be seen immediately but will unfold as the story proceeds.

We too should remember that it is God’s will in our lives that is paramount. Our greatest good is in making that will our own. To think that God will be happy with us simply by our piling up religious exercises is misguided piety.

Remember what Jesus said: “In praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words” (Matt 6:7) and “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28). In other words, we can always be sure that God hears us. But do we always hear him?

GOSPEL (Mark 2:18-22)

The disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees fasted. It was a sign of a deeper commitment to the service of God. How come then that the disciples of Jesus were not fasting? In their defence, Jesus speaks a kind of parable. A wedding feast is no time for the attendants on the bridegroom to be fasting. It is a time for joy and celebration. Jesus is clearly the bridegroom and his disciples the attendants. A time will come when the bridegroom will no longer be visibly with them, then there will be times when fasting will be appropriate.

Jesus continues with another image. No one uses a piece of new, strong cloth to patch an old garment. At the first sign of stress, the new patch will pull and tear the weaker, old cloth. Similarly, no one puts new, fermenting wine in old, used wineskins. When the wine ferments and expands the old skins have no more stretch and will burst. The skins are ruined and the wine lost.

In both images Jesus is saying that he and his teaching and the Way he is proposing cannot be judged by the old, traditional standards. Jesus has brought about a radical shift in the ways we are to relate to God and to each other. The traditional ways identified with the Pharisees and with John the Baptist was basically one where loyalty to God was expressed through strict observation of laws and external practices of commitment like fasting. The Way of Jesus is quite different. It is primarily interior rather than just exterior. It is ultimately rooted in relationships based on love, a love that always seeks the well-being of the other. If we judge what Jesus does by the old ways, we will have difficulties. We need, as Paul says, “to have the mind of Christ”.

This is still relevant in our Church today. There are many who still are living their Catholic life with the Pharisee mind-set. Several decades after the Second Vatican Council, there are still people who have not understood the radical shift in thinking which it introduced. In the liturgy, for instance, the changes in many places are often just cosmetic, on the surface. There are people still “go to Mass” (note the expression) with basically unchanged attitudes or understanding. Others try to cling to the “old days” – Tridentine Masses, continuing to eat fish on Friday, following old devotions (some of which border on the superstitious).

There is still a good deal of individualism and “saving my soul”, staying in “the state of grace to get to heaven” mentality. There are people who still see sin as primarily the breaking of laws and rules rather than a breakdown in loving relationships with God, with others, with self. It is possible to be perfectly ‘orthodox’, affirming the doctrinal teaching of the Church to the last detail and yet be devoid of love in the way one’s life is lived and showing very little concern for the needy of this world. Sad to say, Pharisaism is alive and well. But it is like trying to force the new thinking of the Vatican Council into the old wineskins of past behaviour.

The new wine of Jesus’ teaching needs to be contained in new wineskins. And part of the problems of the Church in certain parts of the world where Christians are falling away can be traced to our unwillingness to let go of old wineskins.

+++

Week 02 | Tuesday

Readings

1 Samuel 16:1-13; Mark 2:23-28

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 16:1-13)

With Saul rejected by God as king, Samuel is now told to look for a successor, whom God has already chosen. The episode, as described here, seems to come from the prophetic tradition and is not related to the later narrative in which David is anointed as king at Hebron by the men of Judah (2 Sam 2:4) and again by the elders of Israel (2 Sam 5:3) where there is no mention of the anointing described in today’s reading. In fact, in the next chapter (1 Sam 17:28), Eliab, David’s eldest brother, speaks to him as if he was still just a shepherd boy who had no place being with the Israelite army.

The reading today opens with the Lord scolding Samuel for grieving over Saul’s rejection as king. Instead he is sent to Jesse, the father of a large family of sons in Bethlehem. At first, Samuel is afraid to go because Saul may hear of it and kill Samuel out of anger and jealousy. The road from Ramah, where Samuel was, to Bethlehem passed through Gibeah, the region of Saul. Saul already knew that the Lord had chosen someone to replace him as king and Samuel was afraid that jealousy would incite Saul to violence. Later incidents would confirm that Samuel’s fears were well-founded. So Samuel is told by God to tell Saul he is going to sacrifice a heifer to the Lord – which in fact he does. It was the truth but not the whole truth.

When Samuel arrived in Bethlehem, he was met by the elders who asked if the prophet’s visit was a peaceful. Samuel simply replied that he had come to offer a sacrifice to the Lord. Again, the truth but not the whole truth about the real purpose of his visit. He orders them to make themselves ceremonially clean for the sacrifice by washing and putting on clean clothes, as required by the law.

Jesse and his family are also invited to the sacrifice during which Samuel is to choose the one who is to be anointed king. Samuel at first presumes that Eliab, the eldest son, is the obvious candidate because his appearance and height seem to indicate he is the one. These were the qualities which had been a factor in Saul being chosen earlier. But the Lord tells Samuel he is not to judge by external appearances. The Lord is concerned more with a person’s inner disposition and character. “The Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” Eliab, then, is not the one.

The second son, Abinadab, and then the third, Shammah, come forward but are also turned down. After seven sons had been presented and passed over, Samuel asks if there are any others.

Jesse says there is still one more, who was not present. He was away in the fields taking care of sheep. This was David. As we saw earlier, his role as one taking care of sheep is contrasted with Saul who was earlier pictured running after wandering and disobedient donkeys. And, of course, the image of the shepherd is one that belongs to God. It is fitting that the king of his people will also be a shepherd. (And we still call those who serve the community of the church ‘pastors’, shepherds.)

Samuel says that the sacrificial meal cannot proceed until the boy is brought in from the fields. He “was ruddy, had beautiful eyes and was handsome”. He is the one that God has chosen and “Samuel took the horn of oil [which he had brought from Ramah] and anointed David in the presence of his brothers.” This small circle of witnesses to David’s anointing assured its confidentiality but also would provide ample testimony for the future that David had been anointed by Samuel and that he was not merely a usurper of Saul’s office.

From that day on, the spirit of God “seized on” David. The spirit of God possesses David without any external manifestation and in close association with the anointing: this is the grace bestowed on one consecrated. The name ‘David’ is an ancient semitic word for ‘commander’, ‘military leader’.

David will become one of the outstanding and most human characters of the Old Testament, as both sinner and saint. In a very special way, he will be the ancestor, through Joseph, of Jesus. Jesus is the “root of Jesse” who comes from Bethlehem, the “city of David”, and it is in the royal city of his ancestor that he will be born.

A reading like this is an opportunity for us to reflect on our own vocation, our being chosen by God for a special task. And we may well wonder, why God has chosen us rather than others whom we might regard as far more qualified to do the work he has given us to do. And within the vocation or way of life in which we already find ourselves, we can still ask to what, in our present circumstances, God is further calling us or whether he may even be calling us to serve him in a different direction altogether.

Let us listen to his call and ask him for the strength and courage to say ‘Yes’.

GOSPEL (Mark 2:23-28)

Today we have a third confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees on the place of the Law in people’s lives. His disciples are accused of violating the sabbath by picking ears of corn as they walked through a cornfield. Stealing was not involved as such “gleaning”, especially by the hungry poor, was tolerated. But the Law forbade reaping on the sabbath. One could hardly call what the disciples were doing as ‘reaping’ but with the casuistic mind of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law the bias was on the side of safety. The perfect observer of the Law would not do anything that could even be regarded in the slightest as a violation.

Jesus solves the issue by appealing to the Hebrew Testament, which, of course, the Pharisees recognised as the word of God. He reminded them how King David and his followers, because they were hungry, went into the house of God and took the loaves of offering, even though only the priests were allowed to eat them.

Jesus then enunciates the principle that “the sabbath was made for people and not people for the Sabbath” and secondly that Jesus is master of the sabbath.

The first principle is a very important one, namely, that all laws are for people and not vice versa. They are not ends in themselves and moral perfection is not in their literal observance. The hunger of David and his men transcended a religious regulation

(that only the priests could eat the bread of offering). For the Jews of Jesus’ time, virtue was in perfect observance of the Law. For Jesus, observance of the Law was only perfect when it was for the good of others and oneself.

The second principle was that Jesus, as the Son of God, was not bound by human laws, however lofty their motive.

We would do well to remember those principles in the living out of our Christian faith.

It is possible to lead rule-centred Christian lives rather than love- and people-centred.

There is only one law in our faith: Love one another as I have loved you. Even God will not violate that law because God IS love. Any law which, in a particular situation, does not serve this primary law can be set aside and should be set aside. Positive laws are necessary for smooth functioning in society but they are never absolute.

+++

Week 02 | Wednesday

Readings

1 Samuel 17:32-33,37,40-51; Mark 3:1-6

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 17:32-33,37,40-51)

Today we read part of the famous story of David and Goliath. Today’s reading goes back to another source for the story of David. In this story, David has not yet been anointed king. Rather, today’s exploit will be one of the factors leading to his being chosen as both successor and replacement for Saul.

Earlier on (not in today’s reading) we are told of the awesome sight of the fully-armed Goliath, a giant of a man who was the champion of the Philistines. Day after day he challenged the Israelites to send out one of their men to take him on in single combat. There were no takers.

It was about this time that Jesse sent his youngest son David to the battlefield to bring food to some of his older brothers who were with the army. David himself is still too young to fight and is a shepherd at home. It is while he is with the army that he sees Goliath come to taunt the soldiers of Israel and they are all too afraid to take him on.

It is then – the beginning of today’s reading – that David approaches Saul and offers to challenge Goliath. “Let your majesty not lose courage. I am at your service to go and fight this Philistine.” Saul, who at this time does not actually know David, is very much against a young boy taking on Goliath. “You are only a youth, while he has been a warrior from his youth.” But Saul does not take into account the power of Yahweh who will be on David’s side against the infidel.

David’s confidence is in the Lord. This will be an essential qualification for a king who will rule in God’s name, a qualification which stands in strong contrast to Saul’s loss of faith. David, too, appeals to his experience as a shepherd where God had protected him from predatory lions and bears attacking his sheep. “Go then,” says Saul. After all, David is the only one at least willing take on the giant, even if the odds seem overwhelming against him.

And so, with Saul’s blessing, David goes forth. In his hand he bore his shepherd’s staff, the symbol of his coming role as shepherd and protector of God’s people. He picked some suitable stones from a nearby wadi. These stones were usually round and smooth and somewhat larger than a baseball or cricket ball. When thrown by a master slinger, they could travel at more than 150 km an hour.

The Benjaminites – and David belonged to the tribe of Benjamin – were famous for their skill with the sling. In Judges we read that an army of Benjaminites included “seven hundred picked men who were left-handed, every one of them able to sling a stone at a hair without missing” (Judges 20:16). David was perhaps more formidable than he looked.

Goliath came to meet him with his shield bearer and armed with a sword, spear and scimitar. He mocked when he saw the young, handsome and virtually unarmed boy coming out to challenge him. (Earlier Saul had offered his armour to David but it was so heavy he could not walk in it!) Goliath is almost insulted to be facing a mere boy. “Am I a dog that you come out to me with a staff?” he mocked. To be regarded as a dog was one of the lowest forms of debasement. We remember Jesus asking the Syro-phoenician woman whether it was right to give the children’s food to dogs, an insulting term used for Gentiles, who like scavenging dogs, made no distinction between food that was clean and unclean. He then curses David and his ‘gods’. To the polytheistic Philistine, the Israelites, like him, believed in many gods. He threatens to leave David as food for carrion birds and other wild animals wandering the desert.

But David is not cowed. Goliath comes against him armed to the teeth but, he says, “I come against you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel which you have insulted.” To insult God’s people is to insult God himself. “It is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.” David’s reliance is totally on his Lord. And it will not be David who will be feeding the birds and animals but Goliath, giving proof that Israel has an all-powerful God. And this battle is not David’s or the Israelites’ but God’s.

The two protagonists then approach each other. Before he knew what had happened David had armed his sling with a stone, aimed skilfully and struck the giant in the centre of his forehead. Goliath fell to the ground. David then drew the giant’s sword from its sheath and beheaded him.

The upshot was that the Philistines were thrown into confusion and fled with the Israelites in pursuit. The day was a great victory for Israel and it was the beginning of David’s rise as leader of his people.

The story proves not so much the courage and skill of David but the protection of God who was choosing him to be the leader of his people. It was a dramatic message to Israelites and Philistines alike. It can happen to us too that we find ourselves capable of taking on challenges which we believed were well beyond us.

Let us remember the words of Paul, “I can do everything in Him who gives me strength” and “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10).

GOSPEL (Mark 3:1-6)

Once again we see Jesus in confrontation with the religious leaders. It follows the same pattern as before between him and his critics, here simply referred to as “they”. It is quite

clear who “they” are.

The scene is in the local synagogue. Once again “they” were looking for evidence with which to convict Jesus. They were watching to see if Jesus would cure a man with a withered hand on a sabbath day. There is every likelihood that the man was “planted” in what the Americans call a “set up”. To use a sick person in this way was really despicable.

There is no doubt that Jesus is fully aware of what is happening. Unhesitatingly, he tells the man to come out and stand in the middle of the assembly. Then he puts his question: “Is it against the law on the sabbath to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?”

His opponents are reduced to silence. They have neither the honesty nor the integrity to give the obvious answer to the question.

In another example of how Jesus shows his feelings, we are told that he was both grieved and angry at their stubborn attitude. Grieved because their attitude was so inappropriate for people who believed they were close to God. Angry because of the terrible injustice they were prepared to impose on this man. In their book, no suffering justified breaking the Law. But for Jesus it is not a matter of keeping or breaking laws but of doing good.

He tells the man to stretch out his withered arm and it is completely cured. The Pharisees – humiliated – immediately went out and began to plot with the Herodians to get rid of Jesus. The Pharisees needed the help of the Herodians, who were supporters of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, if they were to take action against Jesus. This strange alliance shows the extent of the Pharisees’ anger and blinding hatred. The Herodians represented everything the Pharisees despised. It would be like an alliance between Margaret Thatcher and Fidel Castro!

The story once again highlights the difference between morality and law. It was against the Law to do healing work on the sabbath (and even in our society doctors do not normally work on Sundays). This was because, in normal circumstances, the attention of a doctor might involve extensive treatment. But here the healing is done in a moment. Can it be called work? Can it be seen as a violation of the spirit of the sabbath?

In this particular case, where the situation was chronic and causing no immediate distress to the man, it is worth noting that the healing could easily have taken place on another day. But Jesus uttered a principle that transcends all positive law: It is always justified to go what is good, provided no greater good is denied. Similarly, no truly loving act can ever be sinful even though it may violate a law. All laws, except for the law of love, are relative.

The Law about healing on the sabbath had good intentions and was part of the observance of the Lord’s day but it was being absolutised by the Pharisees. It is a tendency in our Christian life which we must also avoid. Even the law about being at Mass on Sunday can be absolutised. Sometimes there are pressing needs e.g. the care of a sick person or a child which can override the law about Sunday Mass.

Christianity is about loving relationships not about conformity to laws. “If I have not love, I am nothing” says St Paul.

+++

Week 02 | Thursday

Readings

1 Samuel 18:6-9;19:1-7; Mark 3:7-12

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 18:6-9;19:1-7)

Saul was deeply impressed by David’s great exploit in killing Goliath and took him into his palace. And a deep friendship developed between David and Jonathan, Saul’s son. We are told a little earlier that “Jonathan had become as fond of David as if his life depended on him; he loved him as he loved himself” (18:1). Jonathan, as a sign of his affection, gave David his own mantle, his military dress, his sword, his bow and his belt. David was now transformed from a shepherd into a soldier.

Our reading today opens by saying that, as David and Saul returned from David’s famous victory over Goliath, the women came out from all the cities, singing and dancing. They played and sang:

Saul has killed his thousands

and David his tens of thousands.

In accordance with the normal convention of Hebrew poetry, this was the women’s way of saying “Both Saul and David have slain thousands” (10,000 was normally used as the parallel of 1,000 – cf. Ps 91:7). It is a measure of Saul’s insecurity and jealousy that he read heard their words literally and took offence. His resentment would also be triggered simply by having David’s name put alongside his own. From then on a seething jealousy and resentment against David grew in his heart.

Things reached a stage where Saul actually intended to kill David. He even tried to contrive that David would be killed in battle by the Philistines. If this happened, Saul’s evil intention would not be known for he was aware of David’s popularity with the people. (Ironically, David himself will do exactly the same thing against the husband of a woman with whom he had an adulterous affair. Except that, in David’s case, the husband was killed and David’s sin was exposed, cf. First Reading II for Friday of the 3rd Week.)

In another ruse Saul offered his own daughter as a bride to David. He hoped that, as Saul’s son-in-law, he would become a target for the Philistines. Unfortunately, this did not work, even though the daughter, Michal, who loved David, did become his wife.

In today’s reading we see Saul trying now to get his son Jonathan to bring about David’s death. He is abandoning the indirect attempts he so far been contriving. He now adopts a more direct approach which will ultimately lead to David’s leaving the court and Saul’s service. However, Jonathan told David about his father’s intentions and later spoke to Saul on David’s behalf. After all, David had done so much to protect Saul and the people by his exploits. Why kill innocent blood?

Considering that David could have been seen as a threat to Jonathan’s own expectations of succeeding his father, his behaviour is both an indication of Jonathan’s integrity and his love and respect for David.

Saul was won over and swore not to kill David, who was reinstated fully. However, Saul had made oaths in the past and not kept them. He won’t keep this one for very long either.

Jealousy can be a terrible thing. It is closely linked with one’s own insecurity and difficulty in accepting what one is. It is very difficult to see others surpassing the skills of which we were proud. It is difficult to see people turning their attention away from us to others. It is difficult for us to have the spirit of John the Baptist, “He must increase; I must decrease.” The cure for jealousy is for us to accept fully our strengths and our weaknesses and not to measure our success as persons by what we can do or by what people think of us.

All that matters is that God be given glory and that the work of the Kingdom be done. If some are doing it better than us, we should be grateful. If some are not doing it better than us but are getting all the credit, does it really matter?

GOSPEL (Mark 3:7-12)

This is a summary text indicating the tremendous drawing power of Jesus with the ordinary people. It is in stark contrast with the preceding passages of conflict with the religious leaders who were out to destroy him. People were coming not only from Galilee, where Jesus was living and working, but from Jerusalem and Judea in the south, from across the river Jordan and even from Gentile regions like Tyre and Sidon. They came because of all they had heard about what he was doing.

So great were the crowds that Jesus had to ask his disciples to get a boat so that he would not be crushed. Huge numbers of people, who had heard of his healing powers, wanted to

touch him. They felt that was enough to be healed. Some, possessed by evil spirits, fell down before him and called out, “You are the Son of God!” Jesus warned them to keep silent. As mentioned before, this call was not a confession of faith but an attempt to turn aside the threatening power of Jesus by using the exact name of the opposing ‘spirit’.

Jesus knew that the people were not ready for this revelation of his identity. Their attitudes were still largely superficial. They were coming for their own immediate needs and not as true followers. They came to get, not to give or share.

Nevertheless, Jesus would not turn them away. He knew that they had great needs which only he could satisfy. He was full of compassion for them and anxious to bring healing into their lives.

+++

Week 02 | Friday

Readings

1 Samuel 24:3-21; Mark 3:13-19

FIRST READING (1 Samuel 24:3-21)

A truly majestic passage with much to say to us in these violent times.

Saul has been continuously trying to put an end to David’s life for he is jealous of David and sees him as a threat to his throne, especially as Saul knows that, because of his own behaviour, he has lost God’s support of him as king.

As our reading opens we find Saul with no less than 3,000 men trying to hunt down David. In some rocky terrain, Saul slips into a cave in order to “cover his feet”, a euphemism for “to relieve himself”. Little does he know that deeper inside the cave is David hiding with his men.

Seeing Saul’s very vulnerable position, David’s men urge him to kill Saul. After all God had promised that he would deliver David’s enemy into his hands. “This is the day of which the Lord said to you, ‘I will deliver your enemy into your grasp; do with him as you see fit’.” Here was the clear opportunity.

Actually, there is no previous record of the divine revelation here alluded to by David’s men. Perhaps it was their own interpretation of the anointing of David to replace Saul, or of assurances given to David that he would survive Saul’s vendetta against him and ultimately become king. It could also refer not to a verbal communication from the Lord but to the providential nature of the incident itself, which David’s men understood as a revelation from God that David should not ignore.

However, David refused to kill Saul. Instead he stealthily just cut off a corner of Saul’s cloak. How he did this without Saul’s being aware is not clear, unless, after relieving himself, Saul had lain down to sleep. But, almost immediately, David regretted what he had done. For the garment was, as it were, the man himself and even to touch it was to lay hands on the person. (We remember in the New Testament how people just touched the clothes of Jesus or of his disciples to be healed.)

For all his wickedness, Saul was still the anointed king of Israel. Nor would David allow his men to attack Saul. Saul’s royal office carried divine sanction by virtue of his anointing, David will not seize the kingship from Saul but leave its disposition to the Lord to whom it belongs.

Only after Saul had left the cave did David reveal himself. He called out to the king and bowed low in reverence to his king. Why should Saul think that David wished him harm when, just now, David had him totally at his mercy and refrained from doing anything? “I will not raise a hand against my lord because he is the Lord’s anointed and a father to me.” Not only is Saul his king but also his father-in-law.

He lets Saul know how close to death he had been. The evidence was in David’s hands; the piece of the cloak that he had cut off. David offered this as proof that he had no designs on Saul and there was no need for Saul to regard David as his enemy. In the end, it would be the Lord who would judge between them.

Saul, for all his faults, generously acknowledges the enormous dignity of David in behaving the way he did. Asks Saul: “If a man meets his enemy, does he send him away unharmed?” In the culture of Israel in those days, the answer was definitely, No! And, in many situations in our own day, it is still No! There many in our society who would not be able to understand the attitude of David.

For now, Saul feels great remorse for his wicked intentions against David but it will not be long before he reverts to his former murderous plots. He realises that a person of such extraordinary dignity as David must surely replace him as king. He only begs David that he not do harm to his family and wipe out his family name. Jonathan will be killed in battle but David will take another son, who is physically handicapped, into the royal palace.

If David had killed Saul, he would have lowered himself to the same level as the king. David here can be seen as a patron for all those – and they are clearly a minority – who believe passionately in non-violent means for dealing all problems, most of all problems which involve violence. This scene really shows the greatness of the man. It is a perfect example of the power (not the weakness) of turning the other cheek.

Among the non-violent heroes of our own time have been Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King but there are many others. They would understand very well what David did. Let us try to understand too.

GOSPEL (Mark 3:13-19)

Jesus goes up a mountain. It has no name because it is the symbolism that is more important than the location. Mountains in the Scriptures are holy places associated with the presence of God. Jesus goes up mountains at more solemn moments in his public life: here, during the Sermon on the Mount, at the Transfiguration, and after feeding the 5,000...

Jesus’ purpose on this occasion is to pick the inner circle of his followers. “They were those whom he wanted.” Later he will say: “I have chosen you; you have not chosen me.” And “they came to him”. A call includes both the invitation and the response. The same is true for each one of us. The call is always there; can we say the same about our response?

There were twelve in this inner circle of disciples. In the New Covenant they would be the “patriarchs”, the foundational pillars of the new community, embracing the new Israel.

They are called “apostles”. A word to be clearly distinguished from “disciples”. The ‘disciple’, which comes from a Latin word meaning ‘to learn’, is essentially a follower who imbibes the teaching of the teacher and tries to make it part of his life. The ‘apostle’, however, from a Greek word meaning ‘to go out on a mission’ (like an ambassador), is essentially one who has a mandate from the teacher to pass on to others.

In the Pauline letters, where the term appears most often in the Christian Testament, it means primarily one who has been a witness of the Risen Lord and has been commissioned to proclaim the resurrection. Paul himself, because of his experience at Damascus, is regarded as an Apostle.

These Twelve were to be Jesus’ companions. They were to preach, that is, proclaim his message of the Kingdom and work with him to make it a reality. They were to cast out demons, to liberate people from all situations which enslaved people to any form of evil.

The list is headed – as are all lists of the Apostles – by Simon Peter. For Mark, the name Peter was given on this occasion. In Matthew it is given later, following his confession of Jesus’ identity. Strangely, the list includes included one man who would betray (‘hand over’) his Master and Lord. And today there are still those, called by Jesus, who betray him. What about me? “Is it I, Lord?” “There go I but for the grace of God.”

+++

Week 02 | Saturday

Readings

2 Samuel 1:1-4,11-12,19,23-27; Mark 3:20-21

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 1:1-4,11-12,19,23-27)

Today we begin reading the Second Book of Samuel, which takes up immediately where the previous book finished. Originally, there was only one book.

As it opens, in a passage full of deep emotion, we again see the extraordinary generosity and noble spirit of David.

At the end of the previous chapter (the last in 1 Samuel), we are told that the Israelites under Saul had been badly defeated by the Philistines. Saul had been wounded in the abdomen by an arrow. Rather than be captured by “uncircumcised” enemies he asked his armour-bearer to put an end to his life. The armour-bearer was too afraid to do such a thing to his king, so Saul took his sword and fell on it. The armour-bearer then killed himself too. In addition, the three sons of Saul also perished.

As our reading opens, a man with his clothes in tatters says he has escaped from the Israelite camp. He has news that the army had fled Saul and his son Jonathan and both been killed in the battle.

However (and this is not contained in today’s reading), when asked how he knew about all this, the young man said he had come across the wounded Saul leaning on his spear. He begged the young man to kill him as he was in great pain. The young man, knowing that the king would not survive his wound, put an end to the king’s life. He brought back the king’s crown and armlet, expecting to get a reward from David, who, he expected, would be happy at the news.

This account does not square with what was said earlier at the end of 1 Samuel and belongs to another tradition. So our reading continues by describing the effect of the news on David. He is overcome with grief and, in the way of the times, tears his garments as did all his followers. He mourned and wept and fasted from food because of the death of Saul, of Jonathan and so did many of the soldiers. Though Saul had tried so often to kill David, David remembers only the good things that Saul had done and his courage in battle.

Then (and it is omitted from our reading), the young man who brought the news was himself executed by David for having killed the Lord’s anointed. He was especially guilty because he was not a circumcised Israelite but an Amalekite, whose people had just been routed in battle by David.

The last part of our reading consists of part of a funeral elegy which David chanted for Saul and Jonathan. Following the tradition that David was a musician, he expresses his grief in a song.

Saul is called “the glory of Israel”. For all his shortcomings, he had been chosen by God as leader of his people and had won many significant victories over Israel’s enemies. “How the mighty have fallen!” or, perhaps more accurately, “How could the mighty have fallen?” – a much-quoted phrase and which forms a kind of refrain for this song, repeated twice more in the elegy. David’s words contain no suggestion of bitterness towards Saul, who had tried more than once to be rid of him, but rather recall the good qualities and accomplishments of Saul and Jonathan.

There is genuine grief in his words:

Saul and Jonathan, beloved and cherished,
separated neither in life nor in death,
swifter than eagles, stronger than lions!

Even though Jonathan opposed his father’s treatment of David and came to David’s defence more than once, he still gave his life beside his father in defence of Israel.

But it is particularly Jonathan’s death which pains David most deeply.

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother!
Most dear have you been to me;
More precious have I held love for you
Than love for women.

In describing the intensity of his love for Jonathan, David is not suggesting that married love is inferior to that of friendship between two men, nor should any homosexual implications be read into his remarks. Such an interpretation would fly in the face of David’s very obvious interest in women and, given the biblical opposition to homosexual behaviour, would not be likely to appear in the context of such a paragon as David. David is simply calling attention to Jonathan’s commitment to his friend, a commitment arising from his conviction that it was David who would succeed to his father’s throne rather than himself (see 1 Sam 20:13-16). David is obviously deeply touched by such selflessness and the love which inspires it.

Of course, there are many who tend to believe that there was more than just friendship between David and Jonathan and their relationship has become a byword for intimate relations between people of the same gender. They have even been adopted by some homosexuals as patrons. However, given the prevailing attitude towards homosexual relationships in the Bible generally, it is not likely that the writer would want to imply David being involved in such a situation.

Today’s reading then is about love and friendship and the pain of loss when friends are taken away from us. Let us too remember those people who were part of our lives and have died. They include: those who have wanted to do us harm and those who have added a beautiful dimension to our lives. They both need our prayers – in one case, our love and, in the other, our forgiveness.

GOSPEL (Mark 3:20-21)

Today we are told that “Jesus came home”? Yet, at another time he will say that he has nowhere to lay his head. One, of course, can say that anywhere can be the home of Jesus or that home is where Jesus is. We have seen references already to the ‘house’ or the ‘home’ indicating any house where Jesus is gathered with his disciples, with those who listen attentively to what he says.

At the same time, so many people came looking for him that he did not even have time to eat. This is in strong contrast with what is going to follow. One might think such popularity would be welcomed especially by his family; a kind of reflected glory. On the contrary, he is an embarrassment to them. They think he is mad. He must be mad because he is in conflict with the religious leaders, with the Pharisees and the Scribes. (It reminds one of the parents of the man born blind who did not want to have anything to do with their son because of his relationships with his healer, Jesus.) He must be mad because a genuine rabbi would never be seen happily in the company of sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers and outcasts.

Similarly, teachers of the Law who had come all the way from Jerusalem (news of Jesus must now be reaching that far) were saying that he must be possessed by the prince of demons and that it was by the power of the prince of demons that he drove out other demons.

From the experience that Jesus had, any of his followers must not expect, simply because he bases his life on truth and brotherly love, that he will be admired, respected and loved in return. From Jesus down, every true follower of Christ has faced misunderstanding, opposition and even verbal and physical violence. And this sometimes from within his own community.

Week 03 | Monday

2 Samuel 5:1-7,10; Mark 3:22-30

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 5:1-7,10)

Up to this, David had only been king of Judah, the southern kingdom of the totality constituted by the territory of the Twelve Tribes. But now he is also chosen as king over Israel, the Northern Kingdom.

David is approached by the representatives, including elders and armed soldiers, of the tribes which made up the northern territory. They give three reasons why they should recognise David as their king.

First, David himself is one of them: “We are your bone and your flesh”. Even though unity between the north and south had been destroyed in civil strife after the death of Saul, they still recognised the blood relationship.

Second, during the reign of Saul, it was David who led the armies to war and brought them back – often victorious.

Third, because the Lord had said earlier to David: “You shall shepherd my people Israel and shall be commander of Israel.”

David now makes a solemn agreement with them in the presence of the Lord, accepting to be their king while they accepted their responsibilities and allegiance to him. For the third time, he is anointed king. (The first was by his family in the presence of Samuel and the second by the people of Judah.) So, while David was elevated as king over Judah by his tribe and later became king over Jerusalem by conquest (as we shall presently see), his rule over the northern tribes was by virtue of a treaty of submission.

It was to be the beginning of a long reign, lasting altogether 40 years – seven years over the southern kingdom of Judah and then 33 years over both Israel and Judah. There is one kingdom but the old divisions remain. David is called king over all “Israel and Judah”. The two parts will be plagued by internal strife between the two parts until it finally breaks up in a permanent division.

The second part of the reading briefly describes one of David’s most significant accomplishments, making Jerusalem his capital. Its capture actually took place after David’s victory over the Philistines described a little later on.

Jerusalem, a fort city built on a hill, at this time was under the control of the Jebusites, a Canaanite people. One can understand why David would have wanted control of it. (Those who have been to Lourdes will know the huge fort on a hill in the centre of the town; anyone who held that hill controlled the countryside all around and so it changed hands many times.)

The site was first occupied in the third millennium BC and was already a royal city in the time of Abraham. It was located on the border between Judah and Benjamin (where David came from) but was controlled by neither tribe. At the time of the conquest when the Israelites arrived in the Promised Land, both Judah and Benjamin had attacked the city but it was quickly lost again to the Jebusites. It was even sometimes referred to by the name of Jebus. The Jebusites were a Canaanite people inhabiting the area in and around Jerusalem.

Standing on high ground with very steep sides, the Jebusites regarded the city as impregnable. Hence their jibe that it could be easily defended even by the blind and the lame. But capture the city David did. And, for the first time in the Old Testament it is called Zion, a name whose meaning is not known. Little did David know the long history it would have down to the present day. A city that is full of significance for Jews, Christians and Muslims. [There is an interesting note on the choice of Jerusalem as capital and its development over the centuries in Old Testament times to be found in the New Jerusalem Bible under 2 Sam 5:9. note f.]

The city David conquered covered somewhat less than 11 acres and could have housed not many more than 3,500 inhabitants. By locating his royal city in a newly conquered town on the border between the two parts of his realm, David united the kingdom under his rule without seeming to subordinate one part to the other. (And it is precisely its situation on the border between Israel and Palestine that makes it such a sticking point today.)

Originally the name Zion appears to have been given to the southernmost hill of the city on which the Jebusite fortress was located. As the city expanded (from the days of Solomon onward), the name began to be applied to the entire city. And from now on it is also called the “City of David”.

For us, it is a city forever linked with the life, death and resurrection of our Saviour, himself a direct descendant of David. One prays that one day it will be a symbol of unity between the followers of the Book – Jews, Christians and Muslims. The word ‘Jerusalem’ contains the word ‘Salem’, which ironically means ‘peace’. It is the same as the Hebrew shalom and the Arabic salaam. Shalom was the greeting the Risen Jesus gave to his disciples and salaam is the word by which Arabs greet each other. In the Malay language, used in Indonesia and Malaysia, the greeting word is selamat. In the Philippines the same word means ‘thanks’. All the religions of the Book are based on a commitment to peace and harmony. As the hymn says: “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.”

GOSPEL (Mark 3:22-30)

We have seen how the religious leaders have tried various ploys to expose Jesus as a violator of the Law. They now try a new tactic to discredit him. Basically they make two accusations:

a. He is possessed, not by just any ordinary demon, but by Beelzebul the prince of demons.

b. It is through the power of the demon in him that he expels evil spirits from others.

Jesus answers both charges. He responds to the second charge by showing its internal

contradictions. If the devil was acting against himself his power would eventually

collapse, like a divided household. To drive the demon from someone as Jesus did was to liberate that person, free that person from evil powers. Why would the demon want to do something like that? The charge does not make sense. It could only be made by a perverse mind.

Nor can someone enter a strong man’s house to burgle without first overpowering the strong man inside and rendering him ineffective. Clearly Jesus is the strong man who cannot be overcome.

The next statement of Jesus, however, may cause difficulties for some. Jesus says that every sin, including all kinds of blasphemies that people can utter, can be forgiven but the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Why only this sin? Is God’s mercy not infinite and omnipotent?

The Spirit is the origin of all that is good in Jesus, in people and in the world. God is present in the world through the Spirit. To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is to deliberately refuse to see that presence, that goodness, as the scribes, for instance, obstinately refused to see the hand of God’s love in all that Jesus was doing. Something the ordinary people had no difficulty in seeing.

Once we are in a position that we have closed our minds to God’s presence in our lives, how can God reach us? God can only forgive those who reach out to him in sorrow and repentance. Forgiveness only came to the Prodigal Son when he turned back to find his father. Forgiveness for God is reconciliation; it is the healing of our wound. He cannot, he will not reach into a heart that has closed itself tight. He will never force his way in. Love is not love if it is not free. But the corollary of that freedom is the ability to choose the opposite. That was the choice the Scribes were making. Hopefully, it is a choice we will never make. God’s hand is always reaching out to me but I need to stretch out mine in order to take it.

Week 03 | Tuesday

2 Samuel 6:12-15,17-19; Mark 3:31-35

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 6:12-15,17-19)

Today’s reading describes a very joyful occasion as David has the Ark of the Covenant brought into Jerusalem.

This was in fact a second attempt. The Ark had been in the house of Abinadab in Baala of Judah. From there, it was mounted on a cart to be brought to the city. It was guided by Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, who walked beside it, while David and the people played instruments and sang songs. At one point, when the oxen seemed to be causing the cart to lose its balance, Uzzah reached out and touched the ark to steady it. Immediately he was struck down for his sacrilegious act which caused great distress to David. He was even afraid now to bring it into Jerusalem.

For three months the Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom, and this brought him many blessings from the Lord. It is at this point that our reading begins today.

Having seen how God had blessed the house of Obed-edom and that God’s anger had been appeased, David decided to bring the Ark up to Jerusalem with great fanfare and jubilation. However, after the bearers of the Ark had only advanced six paces, David offered a sacrifice of an ox and a fatling. Thus, he showed his great reverence for the presence of God which the Ark symbolised.

In the First Book of Chronicles, speaking to the Levites, David says: “Because you were not with us the first time [when the Ark was brought from Abinadab’s house], the wrath of the Lord burst upon us, for we did not seek him aright.” The text continues: “Accordingly the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the Ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Levites bore the Ark on their shoulders with poles, as Moses had ordained according to the word of the Lord” (1 Chron 15:13-15). A little later we are told: “While the Levites, with God’s help, were bearing the Ark of the Covenant to the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams were sacrificed” (1 Chron 15:26).

As the Ark was brought up, David, in his great joy, danced before it “with abandon”, wearing just a linen loincloth. He had just offered sacrifice and was about to give a blessing. The garment he was wearing was a close-fitting, sleeveless pullover, normally of hip length and was different from the special ephod worn by the high priest.

In a verse omitted from today’s reading we are told that David’s wife, Michal, who was the daughter of Saul, was quite disgusted to see her royal husband making a show of himself, “leaping and dancing” before the Lord. His behaviour was quite unworthy of the dignity of a king.

After it had arrived in the city, the Ark was placed, for the time being, in a special tent prepared for it. David, as king, offered holocausts and peace offerings and then blessed the people in the name of God. Food was then distributed to all – for each one a loaf of bread, a cut of roast meat and a raisin cake. At the end all returned to their homes.

The Ark represented the presence of God among his people. It was, to some extent, seen as a “real” presence and, in that sense, could be seen as a forerunner of our church tabernacles.

On the one hand, let us use every opportunity to spend some time before the special presence of Jesus in our church tabernacles (the word really means “tent”) while at the same time deepening our awareness of God’s very real presence in every single person, thing and event of our lives, a presence of which the Eucharist is the sacrament and sign.

GOSPEL (Mark 3:31-35)

We know that many of Jesus’ family already thought he was mad and he had become an

embarrassment to them. Now they come to the house where Jesus is teaching and, standing outside, send in a message asking for him. Do they want to talk with him or to remove him from what he is doing?

The message is sent in: “Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you.” To which Jesus replies, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And pointing to those sitting at his feet listening to his teaching, he says, “Here are my mother and my brothers.” And he clarifies that further by adding, “Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.”

We should note that Jesus’ family is described twice as being on the “outside”. They are “outsiders”. By implication, those sitting in a circle with Jesus are on the “inside”; they are the “insiders”.

What Jesus is clearly saying is that being on the “inside” is not just a question of location but of relationship. And that relationship is not by blood but by identification with the Way of Jesus. To be a Christian is to enter into a new family, with stronger ties than those of blood and where everyone is seen as a brother or a sister. The “insider” is defined simply as “anyone who does the will of God”. So it can include those who are not Christian at all.

A disturbing question that might arise from this passage is the status of Jesus’ mother, Mary. Was she also on the “outside”? The answer surely is an unequivocal ‘No’. We know from Luke’s gospel that, when invited by the angel to be the mother of Jesus, Mary gave an unconditional ‘Yes’. “Behold, I am the slave girl of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” This was her total surrender to the will of God and it was something that she never withdrew through all the difficulties she experienced and, most of all, when the “sword of sorrow” pierced her heart as she saw her own Son’s heart pierced on the Cross. She was with him to the very end and finally would share his joy in the Resurrection.

On one occasion (Luke 11:27-28), when Mary was praised as blessed and privileged for having a wonderful Son like Jesus, Jesus replied, “No, blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” Mary is on the “inside”, not because she was the Mother of Jesus but because of her total identifying with his mission and being with him to the very end.

May we be able to say the same.

Week 03 | Wednesday

2 Samuel 7:4-17; Mark 4:1-20

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 7:4-17)

David is now comfortably set up in his new palace in Jerusalem and there is relative peace as his enemies are, for the time being, lying low. It is in this situation that David begins to think of the Ark of the Lord. He approaches the prophet Nathan and says: “Here I am living in a house of cedar, while the Ark of God dwells in a tent!” Nathan seems to agree and tells David to go ahead and do whatever he has in mind because the Lord is with him. In this, the prophet was not quite right because that very night the Lord had a message for Nathan to pass on to David.

The prophecy is built round a contrast – David is not to build a house (a temple) for God, rather he is to build a House, that is, a dynasty. The essence of the prophecy is the perpetuity of the Davidic house and this is how David understands it. And that is reflected in the Responsorial Psalm for today:

I have made a covenant with my chosen one;
I have sworn to David my servant:
I will establish your dynasty for ever
And set up your throne through all the ages…
I will keep my love for him always;
For him my covenant will endure.
I will establish his dynasty for ever,
Make his throne as lasting as the heavens. (Ps 88 [89])

Up to this, every experience David has had points clearly to a special calling to be the shepherd of his people. He has led his people to victory over their enemies. All this is part of establishing David as head of a dynasty giving security to his people for generations to come.

The prophecy, then, stretches beyond Solomon, David’s immediate successor, to whom it is applied a little later in the passage and in other Old Testament texts. It also points to a very special descendant who will enjoy God’s special favour, namely, the Messiah Jesus. And the Acts of the Apostles explicitly applies the text to Jesus: (Peter is addressing the crowds on the day of Pentecost) “I must speak to you plainly about our famous ancestor King David… He was a prophet, and he knew what God had promised him: God had made a vow that he would make one of David’s descendants a king, just as David was” (Acts 2:29-30).

First, in his message to Nathan, God questions whether David should be the one to build a house for the ark and second, since the days when the Israelites left Egypt the Lord has never had a house and has always lived in a tent. And never once in all those years did the Lord ever ask why his people had never built him a proper house. Of course, David’s intentions were commendable but God had other tasks for him. His gift and his mission was to fight the Lord’s battles until Israel was securely at rest in its land.

David misunderstood the Lord’s priorities. He was reflecting the pagan notion that the gods were mainly interested in human beings only as builders and maintainers of their temples and as practitioners of their cult. Instead, the Lord had raised up rulers in Israel to shepherd his people and that is why David the shepherd boy was brought from one kind of pasture to one of a much more important kind.

The Lord, through his prophet, implies that the main priority is to set up God’s people in security. “I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance… I will give you rest from all your enemies.” And, instead of David making a house for the Lord, it is the Lord who is going to make a House for David. In fact, God has been building up Israel ever since the days of Abraham, and now he commits himself to build David’s royal house so that the promise to Israel may be fulfilled – secure rest in the promised land.

It is God’s work that brings about David’s kingdom. Like those made with Noah, Abram and Phinehas, this covenant with David is unconditional, grounded only in God’s firm and gracious will.  It will find its ultimate fulfilment in the kingship of Christ, who was born of the tribe of Judah and the house of David.

After David’s death, a son (Solomon) will be his heir and the beginning of a secure dynasty that will last for ever. It is Solomon too “who shall build a house for my name”. It is when Israel is at rest and David’s dynasty in the person of his son is secure that the Ark will find a deserving resting place, the great and magnificent temple that Solomon built.

And God will act towards Solomon as a father to a son. If he does wrong, the son will be chastised but, unlike the case of Saul, God will never withdraw his favour from him or his successors. In Jesus Christ this promise will find its ultimate fulfilment.

And then there is the final promise: “Your [David’s] house and your kingdom will endure forever before me: your throne shall stand firm forever.” The promise of an everlasting kingdom for the house of David became the focal point for many later prophecies and powerfully influenced the development of the Messianic hope in Israel. In the years following, there would be many ups and downs, much good and much evil down the centuries but the promise held good with its culmination in the coming of Jesus, the Son of David.

In fact, through Jesus, the descendant of David, the House of David continues and will continue to the end of time.

Looking at this reading, we can also reflect on the place of our church building in our Christian life. In the early Church there were, paradoxically no church buildings but many churches, in the sense of Christ-centred communities.

We need always to remember that, although our church buildings have a very important symbolic and sacramental meaning, the real presence of Christ is in his Body, in his people. For us Christians, our Temple is the temple of our own bodies, individually and collectively.

As we mentioned earlier, if the city of Rome and all in it were to be obliterated by a massive earthquake, it would not made a jot of difference to the continuing existence of the Church. The same can be said for our own parishes. And, in fact, we see parishes being closed down and new ones being established all the time.

Another point for reflection might be our understanding of what God wants from us. David was sure that he should build a house as a dwelling place for God but the Lord had very different ideas. Do I really know what God wants me to be doing? Are my plans the same as his? Maybe we should spend a little time today thinking about this.

GOSPEL (Mark 4:1-20)

Today we see Jesus teaching by the seashore. The crowds were so great that Jesus had to use one of his disciples’ boats and preach from there. Generally speaking, Jesus teaches the crowds near the sea but, when teaching his disciples, he tends to go to a mountain or secluded place.

For the first time in Mark, we come across a number of parables spoken by Jesus. Before we go on to discuss the parable in today’s passage, let us make a few remarks about parables in general. In the New Testament the word ‘parable’ represents a wide range of literary forms. In general, however, it can be said that a parable is a way of illustrating a point of Jesus’ teaching through an illustration from daily life. Sometimes there may be an exaggerated element only to make the point of the parable more striking.

Strictly speaking, the difference between a parable and an allegory is that the former just makes one point as a comparison while in the latter each of the items in the story has a symbolism of its own. Generally speaking, Jesus’ parables were of the first kind but allegory cannot always be excluded. We will see that today’s parable of the sower is a parable in the strict sense but when Jesus explains the parable to his disciples it is made to look more like an allegory. It is not a point to argue about.

The parable of the sower, as presented here, is in three parts. The first part seems to be close to what Jesus actually said and, like most parables, just makes one point. That point is that God’s sowing represents his plan to build the Kingdom, to make his reign effective in the world. Although it may seem to meet with partial or total failure in some areas, overall it will certainly succeed. God’s plans will not be frustrated.

It is a parable to induce confidence, especially for a tiny Church in times of difficulty and persecution (which Mark’s church would have been experiencing).

The parable concludes with the call: “Listen, anyone who has ears to hear!” Listening is a very important element in our relationship with God and Jesus. In the Gospel, listening involves:

- actually hearing the message

- understanding the message

- assimilating the message into one’s own thinking

Once we have reached the third stage, the final stage will inevitably follow:

- acting on the message. Once a way of seeing life becomes part of us, then our behaviour will want to act accordingly. We will not have to force ourselves to act. This is the freedom that comes with being one with Christ and his Way.

The next part of the passage may seem strange. It seems to say that Jesus spoke in parables so that those outside his own circle would not be able to understand. That does not really make sense. Was his message not for all? In fact, Jesus is quoting a rather cynical passage from the Hebrew Testament about people who keep looking but never see, keep listening but never hear. Why? Because if they did see and understand, they might be converted and change but they do not want to be converted or to change. They have already made up their minds. We can meet people like that today.

In fact, the parables, using graphic images from familiar scenes in daily life, were spoken precisely to help people understand the message of Jesus. But, as we have seen, there were those who simply did not want to see even the obvious.

Finally, there is another interpretation of the parable in response to a request by the disciples for an explanation. The explanation somewhat changes the emphasis on the parable itself and it becomes more an allegory than a parable. In the original parable the emphasis is really on the Sower, God, and the ultimate success of his work.

Here the emphasis is on the soil in which the seed is trying to grow. It describes different responses to the Word of the God (the seed). We have to realise first that, in Palestine at this time, the sowing took place before the ploughing. Then we need to visualise a rock-strewn field lying fallow since the last harvest. There are public paths going across it. Weeds and brambles have grown up in parts. This is where the farmer will scatter his seed.

Some seed falls on the barren paths. It gets no welcome and never even begins to grow. Birds come and eat it up. This refers to those who come in contact with the message of Jesus but it never even gets a start in their lives.

Some falls on the rocks where in the crevices there may be some moisture. The seed begins to grow but soon runs out of moisture and nourishment, withers and dies. This is compared to those who embrace Christianity with enthusiasm but, once they meet with some opposition or persecution (which would have been common in the early Church), they fall away.

Some falls among the weeds and brambles. The seed does take root but the weeds are growing too and they eventually choke out the wheat. This is a picture of the Christian who gets caught up in the prevailing (materialistic) values of the surrounding society and ends up producing nothing.

Finally, there is seed which falls on fertile soil and yields a good harvest in varying amounts. These are the Christians who really hear the word (see above) and produce much fruit.

Notice that to be a Christian, it is not enough just to be fervent and observant but one also must be productive. “A good tree bears good fruit.” A branch of the vine that does not bear fruit will be cut off.

I may reflect today which of the above categories best describes me.

Week 03 | Thursday

2 Samuel 7:18-19,24-29; Mark 4:21-25

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 7:18-19,24-29)

Today we read a prayer made by David.

David immediately responds to the word of God which has come to him through the prophet Nathan and which was the reading for yesterday. Today’s reading leaves ut some parts of the whole prayer (vv.18-29).

It is a prayer of praise and thanksgiving for the promises made by Yahweh to establish an everlasting dynasty through David. It expresses wonder that God could make such commitments to him and his descendants. But he also acknowledges that what God had pledged to him was for Israel’s sake, its purpose is the fulfilment of God’s covenanted promise to his people – and that its ultimate effect will be the honour and praise of God throughout the world now and for always.

David “went in and sat before the Lord”. This presumably means that he went into the tent where the Ark was kept. We remember that the Ark was the symbol of God’s presence among his people. Very much as we pray before the Blessed Sacrament, the real and sacramental presence of Jesus among us.

In a way David is alarmed by his new calling. “Who am I, Lord God, and who are the members of my house that you have brought me to this point?”

David, deeply aware of his own inadequacies (soon to be made very evident), begs God to make sure that what he has foretold will be realised. “Confirm for all time the prophecy you have made concerning your servant and his house – and do as you have promised.” David is fully aware that the fulfilment of God’s promise will depend entirely on God and that he, David, is a very fragile instrument in the process.

Again and again, we will see this beautiful characteristic of David – his humility and acknowledgment of his weakness. But, as Paul will point out later, it is precisely in and through our weaknesses that God’s work is carried out. And David is confident because the Lord has made his solemn promise: “I will build you a House.”

So he prays: “Do, then, bless the house of your servant that it may be before you forever; for you, Lord God, have promised, and by your blessing the house [i.e. the dynasty] of your servant shall be blessed forever.”

God continues to build his Kingdom through the cooperation of our feeble efforts. Let us realise that it is precisely in our weakest moments that he can achieve the most in us and through us. “I can do everything in him who gives me strength.”

GOSPEL (Mark 4:21-25)

We are still with Mark in a section of parables and images. Today we see a number of disparate sayings.

No one lights a lamp and then covers it up. Our Christian faith is a light for the world and not to be kept hidden. Our message is not meant to be kept secret but to be broadcast and shared. How many know that we are Christians? How many see us practise our faith openly? How many are influenced by our living according to the Christian vision? Our faith, our knowledge of Jesus and his Gospel, is not something private to be kept to ourselves. A “good” Catholic is not just one who keeps all the Commandments, goes often to Mass, stays in the “state of grace” but, rather, one who radiates his/her faith, shares it generously with others, is as much concerned with others having the experience of loving and being loved by God that he/she has. If we are not SEEN to be Christians we have somehow failed, no matter how good our inner lives may be. To be a Christian is not just to be a good person but an apostle, an evangeliser, a sharer of faith by word and action.

What we give out to others is what we will ourselves receive – and even more. “To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” That is what happened to the man who buried his master’s money in the ground so as not to lose it. Those who invested it, got even more in return. In the Christian life, we gain by giving, not be getting. It is only when we give that we can get. When everyone gives, everyone gets.

Week 03 | Friday

2 Samuel 11:1-4,5-10,13-17; Mark 4:26-34

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 11:1-4,5-10,13-17)

Although David is unquestionably one of the outstanding characters of the Old Testament and a key figure in salvation history leading to the appearance of Jesus as Messiah, King and Saviour, one must admire the honesty with which David’s weaknesses are described. It is difficult to think of any other Old Testament leader who is given such warts-and-all treatment (although some of the patriarchs come pretty close!). But it is what makes David such an attractive personality. It is very easy to identify with him.

And, in fact, it is through the very weakness of David – as in the case of Paul – that God’s power and wisdom are revealed.

The story today begins by telling us that David had sent his army out under Joab. They attacked their enemies, the Ammonites, and laid siege to Rabbah, the Ammonite capital. It would now be about 10 years since David established himself in Jerusalem. It was also the time of year “when kings go out on campaign”, directly after the grain harvest in April or May.  However, while David’s army was out in the field fighting the nation’s battles, David decided to stay at home.

One afternoon as he walked on the flat roof of his palace, after his afternoon rest, he caught sight of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the armour-bearer of Joab, David’s leading general, bathing. He found her very beautiful. On making enquiries about her identity he was told that she was Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam. Later in 2 Samuel there is mention of an Eliam, who was a member of David’s personal bodyguard and a son of his adviser, Ahithophel. She was the wife of Uriah, a member of David’s royal guard and a Hittite. The Hittites were a people from Asia Minor but the term was used of non-semitic people living in Palestine.

Filled with desire for her, he sent for her to be brought to his house, had sexual relations with her and, as she soon told him, made her pregnant. They both knew that, according to the law, they could be condemned to death for their act. That was David’s first sin: lust followed by adultery. However, there is no indication that Bathsheba was an unwilling partner in the affair.

The comment that she was “just purified after her monthly period” is significant. She had just become ceremonially clean after the seven-day period of monthly impurity following menstruation. This makes it clear that she could not have been pregnant by her own husband when David took her. The child was unquestionably David’s.

In letting David know that she was pregnant, she left the next step up to him. The law prescribed the death penalty for both of them but then, of course, he was the king.

Now comes David’s second serious sin. He tried to cover up what he had done. (Was this due to a sensitive awareness of wrongdoing or just to keep himself free from the application of the Law?) He summoned Uriah from the battlefield back to Jerusalem on the pretext of finding out how the fighting was going on. Uriah reported that the fighting was going very well. David then, in a show of deep consideration, urged Uriah to go down to his house and relax for a while. What he does not say specifically is what is most important, and well understood by Uriah. He clearly hoped that Uriah would also have sexual relations with his wife and then David’s sin would remain a secret.

The king also sent a portion from the king’s table. David wanted Uriah and Bathsheba to have a really enjoyable evening together with more implications of what that would mean.

The next two verses in the original text are omitted. In them, Uriah, who clearly understands all that David is hinting at, asks how he could go home, eat with his wife and have sexual relations with her, when Joab and the army and even the Ark of the Lord are out in the battlefields. It was also a religious obligation for soldiers in war to practice continence. He refuses point blank. David’s actions are looking even worse than ever. Even the Lord is out in the battlefield while David is at home indulging in behaviour for which he should be deprived of his life. David’s plan had failed miserably.

But David had not yet given up. He persuaded Uriah to stay over at least for another day. On the following day, Uriah was again invited to share David’s table. There was a lot of wine and David managed to get Uriah drunk, obviously hoping that, in that condition, he would fall into his wife’s bed. But, instead of going home as expected, Uriah slept with the servants in the king’s palace. Failure of Plan Two.

David now played his last and most terrible card. He sent Uriah back to the battlefield and told Joab to put Uriah where the fighting was fiercest. At the critical moment, the soldiers were to be pulled back, leaving Uriah exposed to the enemy. This plan worked and Uriah was killed. Having failed to make it look as if Uriah was the father of Bathsheba’s child, he got rid of Uriah altogether and could now enter a quick marriage with Bathsheba. It is difficult to think of a more reprehensible way of behaving.

David is guilty of adultery, deception and finally murder. It is a sad record for a man who was chosen by God and anointed three times to be king and leader of God’s people and to be the founder of a dynasty that would never end. It is another example of how good can emerge from the most evil actions. For David is the direct ancestor of Jesus, the Son of God. Bathsheba will soon be the mother of Solomon from whom the rest of the Davidic line would continue. Hence she is also an ancestor of Jesus.

Before we condemn David, we need first, to read the rest of the story and then look at our own lives. We could recall Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.”

In our time, especially, we seem to be so quick to condemn people’s wrongdoings, especially public figures. We use them as scapegoats to cover our own shortcomings.

Did God condemn David for what he did? Let us wait and see as the story unfolds.

GOSPEL (Mark 4:26-34)

Here we have the two last parables told by Mark in this part of his gospel. They are both images of the Kingdom of God, of God’s truth and love spreading among people all over the world. They are both taken from the world of agriculture, a world that would have been very familiar to Jesus’ listeners.

In the first, God’s work is compared to a farmer planting seed. As in the parable of the sower, the seed is the Kingdom. Night and day the process of growth continues without any human intervention. Whether the farmer is awake or asleep the process of growth continues. The seed sprouts and grows and he does not know how. The outcome is certain. Once the seed is ripe, it is for the farmer to bring in the harvest. And that is our task: to bring in the harvest which has been planted in the hearts of people. In the words of the other parables, it is up to us to throw the light which helps people see the truth and love of God already present in their deepest being.

In the second parable the Kingdom is compared to a mustard seed. Although one of the tiniest of seeds, it grows into a sizeable shrub in which even birds can build their nests.

Both of these parables are words of encouragement to a struggling Church, living in small, scattered communities and surrounded by hostile elements ready to destroy it. How amazed would the Christians of those days if they could see how the seed has grown and spread to parts of the world of whose very existence they were totally unaware. We today still need to have their trust and confidence in the power of the Kingdom to survive and spread.

Mark says that Jesus spoke many parables, in fact, he only spoke in parables. But the full meaning of his teaching was explained to his inner circles of disciples. Those staying “outside” were not ready to take in the message. They are the ones who were not “hearing”, as Jesus told his disciples to do. How sensitive is my hearing?

Week 03 | Saturday

2 Samuel 12:1-7,10-17; Mark 4:35-41

FIRST READING (2 Samuel 12:1-7,10-17)

If David thought he could get away with the terrible crimes he had committed, he was deeply mistaken.

Hardly had Bathsheba given birth to the boy when David is confronted by the prophet Nathan. “The Lord sent Nathan to David.” Prophets are primarily people who bring a message from God. We met Nathan before when David complained to him about his discomfort of living in a house of cedar while the Ark of the Covenant was still in a tent (2 Sam 7:2). Here the prophet comes to proclaim God’s judgement against the king he had set over his own people.

The message is uttered through one of the most striking parables to be found in the Old Testament. Nathan tells David about a rich man, the owner of large herds, who takes for his own table not one of his own many sheep but the single ewe lamb of a poor peasant in order to entertain a visitor. Not only was this the only sheep the farmer owned but “she was like a daughter to him” and shared the little food that he had. As a ewe also, she could be capable of producing lambs for the poor man.

On hearing the story, David was filled with indignation and declared that the rich man deserved to be executed. “He shall restore the ewe lamb fourfold because he has done this and has had no pity.” Repaying four times was a requirement of the Law (cf. Exod 22:1). It reminds us of what the chief tax collector in Jericho said to Jesus after their encounter: “If I have cheated anyone, I will pay back four times as much” (Luke 19:8)

Nathan then quietly says to David: “You are the man!” Nothing more had to be said. What David had done was, in fact, many times worse than taking a lamb from a poor man. He had stolen a man’s wife and then cold-bloodedly had him killed.

Nathan then goes on (not part of our reading) to list some of the things that David had received from the Lord, including the wives and harem of his predecessor, Saul. “I gave you your lord’s house and your lord’s wives for your own.” In spite of being surrounded by so many women, he goes and steals another man’s wife and then has Uriah killed by the Ammonites, the enemy they were fighting. But it was really David who had killed Uriah; he was no tragic victim of battle.

Speaking in God’s name Nathan spells out David’s punishment: violence and death will come to his own family: three of his sons, Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah will all die violent deaths. “I will bring evil on you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it and will give them to your neighbour. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.” All this took place during the rebellion of David’s son Absalom, when David was forced to flee his palace but left behind ten concubines. David’s wives would be taken just as he had taken the wife of Uriah.

Finally, what David thought he had done in secret becomes public knowledge.

In a spirit of deep remorse and repentance, David totally acknowledges his sin. His feelings are beautifully expressed in Psalm 51, part of which forms today’s Responsorial Psalm:

My offences truly I know them;

my sin is always before me.

Against you, you alone, have I sinned;

what is evil in your sight I have done.

But Nathan tells David that his sin is forgiven. He will not die for it (as the law demanded) but he will lose the child of his adultery. The boy fell sick and David was devastated, refusing to eat and sleeping on the ground wearing sackcloth, the sign of repentance. Despite the urging of his courtiers he refused to get up from the ground nor would he eat. He was heartbroken not just because of the death of his son but because of the circumstances in which the child had been born in the first place. This was the price of his sin.

It is not our sins which condemn us in God’s eyes but our refusal to repent and change our ways. Once we genuinely express our sorrow and show it by a “conversion”, God’s mercy is there and waiting. Jesus spelt this out so clearly in the parables of the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son.

God does not desire the death of a sinner but that he should have life. “I have not come to condemn the world... I have come that they may have life, life in greater abundance.”

Let me look at my own life. First, let me openly acknowledge my sinful acts, especially those where I have hurt others, and take full responsibility for them. Then let me turn to my God and ask for his healing that I may be made a whole person again.

GOSPEL (Mark 4:35-41)

After the passage on the parables, Mark continues by narrating four miracle stories, two of them put together in an “inclusion”. There are two messages in today’s story of the calming of the storm at sea.

The first is that the calming of the sea indicates the true identity of Jesus; he has the power of God himself. This question of Jesus’ identity is a major theme of Mark’s gospel.

He speaks to the sea as if it were a living thing, an instrument of the devil, an evil thing. No wonder that the disciples are filled with awe. Their question contains its own answer: “Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?”, as is clear from passages in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms:

You still the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves (Ps 65:8)

You rule over the surging of the sea; you still the swelling of its waves (Ps 89:10)

More powerful than the roar of many waters, more powerful than the breakers of the sea (Ps 93-34)

He hushed the storm to a gentle breeze, and the billows of the sea were stilled (Ps 107:29).

The second message lies in the symbolism underlying the whole story. It is a story of the early Church. The boat represents a church community. (Our Church is a community of churches.) The surrounding sea is the world. Jesus gets into the boat “just as he was”, that is, a man looking no different from his disciples. There were other boats too. That is, other church communities. Then a violent storm arises and waves threaten to swamp the boat and sink it. This is just what was happening to so many little communities surrounded by hostile elements bent on wiping out the Christian faith.

Where was Jesus during all this? Asleep! Not in the least worried. The disciples scold him: “Teacher (not yet Lord), do you not care that we are all going to be drowned?” How often that complaint must have risen from those tiny, battered communities wondering where their Lord was in all their troubles! Jesus wakes up and tells the wind to be still. And calm returns.

Now they are scolded: “Why were you afraid? Do you not yet have faith?” That is, trust in Jesus’ caring for them. Of course, the real calm is not so much in the sea as in their hearts when they realise that Jesus is not far away, he is not asleep or absent but is with them all the time.

Let us pray for that inner peace that comes from knowing Jesus is always very close to us, no matter what may be going on in our lives.

Week 04 | Monday

2 Sam 15:13-14, 30; 16:5-13

This is a strange narrative which shows the humility of David and which has much to say to us.

First, David is told that his son, Absalom, has rebelled against him and is acting as king. David, realising that Absalom has won over the majority, decides to flee from Jerusalem. He did not want to fall into the hands of his son and have a bloodbath in the city. At the same time, he did not altogether despair of the situation because he had left supporters behind. He sent Zadok the priest and Abiathar with the Ark back to the city. He also left ten of his concubines there. But, as he was caught between rebels from both the north and south parts of the kingdom, he decided to make a strategic withdrawal (cf. 2 Sam 15:27 and 34ff).

But he was brokenhearted over the turn of events. As he went up the Mount of Olives (clearly he had not gone far from the city), he wept constantly, with his head covered and walking barefoot as did his followers. This was the usual mourning ritual but came to be used as a sign of deep sorrow in general.

A little later, as David was approaching Bahurim, which was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, he was approached by a man who started cursing the king. The man’s name was Shimei, son of a man called Gera and from the same clan as Saul. He also began throwing stones at David and at the royal guards, who were on either side of him.

“Away, away, you murderous and wicked man!” he shouted at the king. The term he used was belial, a name used for Satan and hence the personification of evil and lawlessness (Paul uses the term in 2 Cor 6:15). He called out to David, saying that David was only suffering the consequences of his actions, especially his bloodshed against the family of Saul.

We are told later on that David agreed to avenge the sufferings of the Gibeonites at the hands of Saul by delivering into their hands seven of Saul’s sons, who were dismembered and killed. Because of a promise, the son of Jonathan was spared (cf. 2 Sam 21:1-14). For all his humanity and sensitivity, David was a product of his age.

In addition, said Shimei, David had lost his kingdom to his son Absalom. “Now you suffer ruin because you are a murderer.” The story of Uriah and Bathseba was also public knowledge.

Naturally, David’s followers were all for killing the man who spoke in such an insulting way to their king. “Why should this dead dog curse my lord and king?” says Abishai. “Let me go over and take his head off.” In that culture, one could hardly use a worse insult than call a living person a “dead dog”.

David, however, wondered if the man was only doing the Lord’s bidding. After all, he was not saying anything that was untrue. If Absalom, his own son, could turn against him, why not a man of Saul’s family? “Perhaps the Lord will look upon my affliction and make it up to me with benefits for the curses he is uttering this day,” he told his followers.

David and his followers continued on their journey but Shimei went on taunting them by cursing and throwing stones and dirt.

(To round off the full story, some time later, Shimei approached David and apologised profusely for what he did that day in cursing the king. Although Abishai was for killing him, David held his hand and made an oath to protect Shimei. However, when giving his final instructions on his death-bed, David said Shimei should not go unpunished for what he did but he left the form of punishment to his successors [see 2 Sam 19:18-23 and 1 Kgs 2:8-9]).

It would have been so easy for David, using his kingly prerogative, to wipe out the man who cursed him. In a similar situation, how would we – plebeians that we are – have acted? How do we feel when people speak critically or abusively of us?

In this story we have here a very good example of turning the other cheek (very rare in the Old Testament – not to mention in contemporary life!).

Our hitting back does not protect our dignity but rather reveals our insecurity. When people say bad things about us, either they are true or they are false. If true, we can accept them; nothing new is being said. If they are false, we can ignore them.

Of course, there may be situations where, for serious reasons, we might have to defend our reputation. I might lose my job because of false accusations or I might even find myself unjustly being charged with a crime.

But much of the time, our reaction is an indication of our touchiness and an inner sense that we really deserve even more than is being said. So we go on the defensive.

Apart from David’s example, we can look at Jesus, especially during his trial. He met his accusers with a dignified silence. In doing so, he towers over them in dignity and strength.

Mark 5:1-20

Today we see Mark at his best. A story full of drama and excitement. Compare the very bland version in Matthew (where, for some reason, there are two men.) It takes place in the “country of the Gerasenes” which was Gentile territory.

There was a man who was possessed by several demons (“My name is Legion for there are many of us.”) He was absolutely uncontrollable, could smash through chains and lived in isolated places, an outcast and a source of fear to people everywhere.

But when Jesus appears, it is the demons’ turn to fear. They begged not to be sent out of that district. (As Gentile territory was it fertile ground for their activities, a Screwtape’s paradise?) They offer a deal. They ask to be allowed to enter a herd of pigs. The presence of pigs indicates this was Gentile territory. Their request is granted. Once possessed, the pigs, 2,000 of them, went berserk and hurtled down a cliff into the lake and were drowned.

To the thinking of many today, this seems like a terrible waste of good pigs. How could Jesus do such a thing? But we need to remember that this was written in a Jewish context where pigs were regarded as unclean and to be avoided at all costs. We remember how the Prodigal Son was condemned in his hunger to get a job tending pigs and even to eating their food. For a Jew, this was the very lowest any human could go in terms of humiliation and degradation. So getting rid of these pigs was no big deal. A case of good riddance. A better place to put evil spirits could not be imagined!

On the other hand, the swineherds were naturally upset at losing their means of livelihood and went back to the towns to announce what had happened. The people came out to see this extraordinary happening. They found Jesus and the man, perfectly composed and fully dressed. And they were afraid. Naturally, they realised that, in Jesus, they were in the presence of Someone very special who had such powers. They were also very upset that their herds of pigs had been destroyed and, not surprisingly, they begged Jesus to go elsewhere.

The man, however, asked to follow Jesus. Jesus’ response is interesting. He said to the man, “Go home to your people and tell them all that the Lord in his mercy has done for you.” This was, in fact, another kind of following. And is a message each of us can hear.

Some of us think that following Jesus means spending a lot of time “with Jesus” in religious activities or joining the priesthood or religious life. For most of us, our calling and our following of Jesus takes place right where we are. It is there that we need to share with others our experience of knowing and being loved by Jesus. Let us go home and tell others what Jesus means in our lives. And, like the people in the Gospel, they may be amazed.

Week 04 | Tuesday

2 Sam 18:9-10, 14, 24-25, 30-19:3

Once again David surprises us by his reactions.

The tables are being turned on the rebellious Absalom and a huge army goes out against his supporters. David himself, on the advice of his commanders, stays behind. Already they suspect his gentle attitude towards his son. “Deal gently with him,” he told them as they set off. In the ensuing battle, David’s men are victorious.

Absalom, now in flight, on his mule gets his long hair caught in branches as he rides under a tree. The mule rides on and Absalom is left hanging in mid-air. (The mule apparently was the normal mount for royalty in David’s kingdom.) We were told earlier that Absalom, who was stunningly handsome, had such an abundance of thick hair that he had to shave his head every year. Presumably, then, it was this hair which got entangled in the branches of the tree. Whatever the cause, it was the young man’s beauty which was his undoing.

Absalom hanging from the tree was immediately reported to Joab, the general leading the army.

In verses not part of today’s reading, Joab asked the man why he had not struck Absalom down and received a reward. The man replied that even if he had 2,000 piece of silver in his hands, he would not lay a hand on the king’s son, whom David had ordered his officers to protect. “If I had done this,” he said, “I would have been held to account while Joab and his men would have pleaded ignorance.” (Just as higher-ups still do today.)

Joab then himself went and thrust three pikes into the heart of the helpless Absalom, still hanging alive on the tree. In Joab’s view, the rebellion is now over and the threat to David’s throne has been removed.

The battle is now called off. Absalom is taken down from the tree and thrown into a deep pit in the forest. A pile of stones is set up as a marker for his grave.

Meanwhile, Ahimaaz, the son of the priest Zadok, offers to bring the good news of the victory to David. Joab tells him he is not the man to do it because, in fact, for David it will not be good news with his son dead. Instead an anonymous Cushite is sent to bring the message. Then Ahimaaz again pleads with Joab to let him go. Joab tells him: “There is no reward in this for you, believe me.” But in the end he lets Ahimaaz go. He runs after the Cushite and actually overtakes him and is the first to reach the city wall.

A lookout on the city gates saw Ahimaaz running alone. David said, “If he is alone, it must be good news.” A large group of fleeing soldiers could only have meant disaster. Then the second runner is seen and again David says it must mean good news. As the runners get closer, Ahimaaz is recognised as one of them. Said David: “He is a good man; he comes with good news.”

Ahimaaz then, in the presence of David, reports: “Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delivered up the men who rebelled against my lord the king.” But David has only one question: “Is my son Absalom safe?” Ahimaaz, suddenly realising the significance of the question, is immediately cautious and, in fact, does not say what he knows: “I saw a great disturbance when the king’s servant Joab sent your servant on, but I do not know what it was.”

David then put Ahimaaz aside until he heard the Cushite’s report. The Cushite too at first only gives a general report: “Let my lord the king receive the good news that this day the Lord has taken your part, freeing you from the grasp of all who rebelled against you.”

Again, the king has only one concern: “Is young Absalom safe?” The indirect response of the Cushite says it all: “May the enemies of my lord the king and all who rebel against you with evil intent be as that young man!”

Far from being overjoyed at the removal of his rebellious son, David takes refuges in a room over the city gate and is overcome with grief: “My son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you, Absalom, my son, my son!” Words that have echoed down the centuries as one of the most moving expressions of a father’s love. And that in spite of all that Absalom had done against his father. It reminds one of the way that God loves us, even at our most sinful.

And what should have been a triumphant victory is turned into a day of mourning for the whole army.

As the text continues beyond our reading, we are told that the generals and soldiers had mixed feelings about David’s reaction. They wondered if Absalom, who was out to destroy his father, had lived and they had died, would David have been happier? In that they may have been unfair. For it is only a parent who knows the feeling of having a child, even a rebellious child, lost in this way.

Once again, we see the deep humanity of David. He did what we often fail to do. He made the clear distinction between the person of his son and his actions. He was opposed to his son’s actions but he deeply loved his son. We sometimes express that by saying that we love the sinner but not the sin. So often, however, our hate is directed so that both forgiveness and reconciliation can be very difficult.

Jesus, of course, as the image of his Father, also set us an example in this regard. As men, filled with hatred, nailed him to the cross, he prayed: “Father, forgive them. They do not know what they are doing.” And, of course, every time we take advantage of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we expect that God will forgive us no matter what we may have done or how often.

Let us remember, though, that as Christians we need to take on the same attitude as Jesus. Every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer we say, “Forgive us our sins AS we forgive those who sin against us.” It is a dangerous prayer to make and we should think twice about its meaning before we let it trip so easily off our tongues.

Mark 5:21-43

Today’s passage illustrates a feature of Mark’s gospel – inclusion, where one passage is contained inside another. Today we have two miracles, with one of them narrated inside the other. Again we are told of large crowds gathering around Jesus on the shore as once again he crosses the lake.

A synagogue official, Jairus, approaches and begs Jesus to lay his healing hands on his daughter who is very ill. Such a person was responsible for conducting services at the synagogue and keeping order. Sometimes the title was honorary without any administrative responsibility.

He asks Jesus to come and lay his healing hands on her, as he has done for so many others. As Jesus makes his way to the house followed by a large crowd, there is a woman who had been haemorrhaging for 12 years. She had tried every kind of medical treatment but in vain; in fact, she was getting worse. Apart from the distress caused by the ailment, her bleeding rendered her ritually unclean. If the people around her knew of her condition she might have been attacked. Hence her great anxiety to approach Jesus without being identified or drawing attention.

She had this tremendous faith that, just by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment, she would be healed. And she was – immediately. In both cases, there was a deep conviction that physical contact together with faith in Jesus’ power to heal would bring about a cure. It is important for us to recover the connection between physical touch and healing.

Jesus was aware that something had happened, “aware that power had gone out from him”. His disciples naturally wondered how he could say this when so many people were pressing in on him.

In fear and trembling, probably more afraid of the crowd than of Jesus, the woman identified herself. She then hears the beautiful words: “Your faith [your total trust in me] has restored you to health; go in peace and be free from your complaint.” Peace indeed. Not only was she physically cured but she could now mix freely with people again. She was fully restored to society and her community, without shame, without having to hide.

Now we resume the first story. Messengers come to say that Jairus’ daughter has died. There is no need to bother Jesus any more. Jesus urges Jairus to keep believing. As he approaches the house, he separates from the crowd and brings only Peter, James and John with him as witnesses to a very special event. The house is full of mourners, wailing and weeping in the customary way.

“What’s all the fuss about? The child is not dead, only asleep.” In so speaking, Jesus is not denying the child’s real death, but it is an assurance that she will be wakened from her sleep of death. Death in the Old Testament is often described as sleep. And we, too, read on gravestones that so-and-so “went to sleep in the Lord”.

The crowd, often portrayed as so supportive of Jesus, here are shown as incredulous. They laugh at him. So everyone is put out of the room except the child’s parents and Jesus’ his three companions. Taking the girl by the hand, he says: “Little girl, I tell you get up [rise].” The words suggest resurrection to new life. Immediately the girl got up and began to walk around. She was just 12 years old.

Those present are “overcome with astonishment” and are told not to say anything to anyone and reminded to give the poor girl some food. This is another step in the unfolding of Jesus’ true identity while at the same time he does not want that identity to be made public at this stage.

Week 04 | Wednesday

2 Sam 24:2, 9-17

Today we have our last reading from the Second Book of Samuel. We are also coming to the end of David’s life.

Today’s reading comes from the final chapter of 2 Samuel. It seems that the material was originally part of chapter 21 where we are told that there had been three consecutive years of famine.

David gives a command for a military census to be made of the whole country from the far north (Dan) to the very south (Beer-sheba). However, as soon as it was done, David deeply regretted what he had done. The preceding verse (not in our reading) implies that David’s decision was the result of God’s anger against the people and would result in a lot of suffering.

The census does not appear to have been prompted by any external threat. Since he wanted to “know how many there are” (v.2), it is evident that his action was motivated either by pride in the size of the empire he had acquired or by reliance for his security on the size of the reserve of manpower he could muster in an emergency or, more likely, both.

The mere taking of a census was hardly sinful (there were precedents in the past) but in this instance it represented an unwarranted glorying in and dependence on human power rather than the Lord (not much different from Israel’s initial desire to have a king for their security, see 1 Sam 8-12). In those days a census was often considered impious because it usurped the prerogative of God to whom alone it belonged to give increase to family and nation. The act in many ways was uncharacteristic of David.

The result of the census found that in Israel (the northern part of the kingdom) there were 800,000 men fit for military service and in Judah (the southern part) there were 500,000. Even by today’s standards for a large country, they would be huge figures so we can take it they are highly inflated. This, of course, only makes clearer the taking of the census as a kind of hubris.

Almost immediately, David could see the whole exercise as a not so subtle act of arrogance, of pride in the size of his kingdom, and of the material resources he had to deal with any enemies. In other words, it seemed to turn the focus away from the Israelites’ real source of strength and security, namely, the Lord God and towards themselves. David now begs God’s forgiveness for what he has done.

And indeed God seems to concur with David’s view. The following day, Gad the seer is sent with a message. David is offered a choice of three forms of punishment: three years of famine, to be on the run from his enemies for three months, or endure a pestilence for three days. The three alternative judgments were all included in the curses that Moses said would come on God’s people when they failed to adhere to their covenant obligations (see Deut 28:15-25).

It was a very difficult choice but David chose the last of the three – three days of pestilence. “Let us fall by the hand of God, for he is most merciful,” he said. David, who knew both God and war, knew that even in his anger God was more merciful than man let loose in the rampages of war (see Ps 30:5).

It may have been only three days but it coincided with the time of the wheat harvest. The death toll throughout the nation was 70,000 people. But as the plague was about to destroy Jerusalem, God relented and stayed the hand of the avenging angel. He stopped at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. This was located on Mount Moriah, immediately north of David’s city and overlooking it. Later it would become the site of the temple.

Characteristically, David takes responsibility for the sin that had been committed. The sin was his and not that of the people. It was David’s decision to have the census. They should not have had to suffer. “It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong. But these are sheep… Punish me and my kindred.” The people of Israel were certainly not without guilt; in fact, it was the Lord’s anger against them that led David to order the census for which they would have to pay the price. Even so, David characteristically assumes full blame for his own act and acknowledges his responsibility as king for the well-being of the Lord’s people.

The story reminds us of the subtle arrogance that can rule our lives. We can set so much store by our intellectual or academic abilities, by our professional skills or status, by the material goods we have accumulated. And we forget how really vulnerable we are and how little we can do without God’s help.

There is also our constant tendency to lay the blame on others when things go wrong. We don’t find it easy to follow David’s example.

Let us reflect today on where we put our day to day security and where God fits into our lifestyle.

Mark 6:1-6

Jesus returns to his home town in the company of his disciples. On the sabbath day, as was his right, he began teaching in the synagogue. His listeners, who all knew him since he was a child, are staggered at the way he speaks. “Where did the man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been granted him and these miracles that are worked through him?” He had no more education than any of his fellow-villagers. But the point is that they do recognise his wisdom and his power to perform miracles. Yet, he is “only” a carpenter, the son of Mary and related to James and Joset and Jude and Simon and with “sisters” as well.

And, because they knew him so well, they could not accept him. They deliberately chose not to see what was happening before their eyes. This, of course, is the irony of the whole situation. They did not know him at all. They were blinded by a superficial familiarity. So Jesus says, “A prophet is only despised in his own country, among

his own relations, and in his own house.” A saying known in other cultures and an experience all too often repeated in our own day. In comparing himself to the Hebrew prophets who went before him, Jesus foreshadows his ultimate rejection by many of his own people. We have already seen his problems with his own family and now with his townspeople. It is not the end.

The trap of familiarity is one we can all fall into very easily. How many times have we failed to recognise the voice of Jesus speaking to us because the person is someone we meet every day, a person we may not like or despise? But God can and does talk to us through all kinds of people, Catholic or not, relative, friend, colleague, our own children, total stranger, educated, uneducated…

As a result, we are told, Jesus not only did not but “could not” work any miracles there, except for a few sick people who were cured by the laying of hands. But he could not help those who had no faith in him. Jesus works only when we cooperate and open ourselves to him. Mark often says how amazed the people are at Jesus’ teaching. Now it is Jesus” turn to be amazed at his home town’s lack of faith and trust in him.

Week 04 | Thursday

1 Kgs 2:1-4, 10-12

Introduction: The Books of Kings

The two Books of Kings were originally, like 1 and 2 Samuel, a single historical work. In conjunction with the Books of Samuel they extend the consecutive history of Israel from the birth of Samuel to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C This combined work is designed as a religious history; hence in Kings the temple, which is the chosen site for the worship of Yahweh, occupies the centre of attention.

The Books of Kings show clearly the theological bent of a Deuteronomic editor.

In them, as already in Judges, material from various sources, such as the “book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kgs 11:41) and the “book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19), is forged into structural unity by an editor whose principal interest is in the fidelity to Yahweh of rulers and people. The reigns of individual kings are adapted to an editorial framework consisting of a presentation

and an obituary notice for each, in stereotyped formulae. In between, the achieve ments of the king are reported – above all, his fidelity or lack of fidelity to Yahweh.

The faithful prosper; the unfaithful pay for their defections. Since this is basically a narrative of sin and retribution, it would not be inappropriate to entitle the Books of Kings “The Rise and Fall of the Israelite Monarchy”.

Without minimising the complexity of the process by which this material was transmitted for many centuries, one may speak of two editions of the Books: the first at some time between 621 BC and 597 B.C. and the second, final edition during the Exile; probably shortly after Jehoiachin was released from his Baby lonian Prison (561 BC).

1 Kings carries the history of Israel from the last days and death of David to the accession in Samaria of Ahaziah, son of Ahab, near the end of the reign of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Judgment is passed on Ahaziah’s reign but the details are given only later, in 2 Kings. We should note the two large cycles of traditions which grew up around the great prophetic figures of Elijah and Elisha, the former in I Kings and the latter chiefly in 2 Kings. These cycles, which interrupt the sequence of regnal chronicles, were very probably preserved and transmitted by the prophetic communities to which there are references in the same traditions. The Elijah cycle is the more important since it dramatically underscores Israel’s critical struggle with the religion of Canaan.

The principal divisions of the Books of Kings are:

I. The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:1-11:43).

II. Judah and Israel to the Time of Ahab (1 Kgs 12:1-16,34).

III. Stories of the Prophets (1 Kgs 17:1-22,54).

IV. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (2 Kgs 1:1-17, 41).

V. The Kingdom of Judah after 721 BC (2 Kgs 18:1-25:30).

(New American Bible)

Today we begin today the First Book of Kings. We carry on the narrative from 2 Samuel as David comes to the end of his life and hands over the kingship to his son Solomon, the second son that he had by Bathsheba (after she had become his wife).

Today’s reading contains part of David’s final testament before his death. Moses, Joshua and Samuel, as representatives of God’s rule over his people, had all given final instructions and admonitions before they died. David is now going “the way of all flesh” and exhorts his son to be courageous and act like a real man.

While the section in our reading consists of positive instructions to his son and successor, Solomon, he is also instructed to execute vengeance on David’s personal enemies, including Joab, one of his chief generals who had betrayed him, and Shimei, a man who had cursed David and whom David had originally told should not be touched. Such instructions for blood-revenge and enduring curses were common for the period.

On the positive side, Solomon is told to observe what the Lord his God requires. He is to walk in the Lord’s ways, a characteristic expression from the law of Moses for acting in obedience to the obligations of the covenant. These obligations are spelt out: to observe God’s decrees and commands, his laws and requirements. And finally, there is a prayer for success in all his undertakings.

David then prays that the Lord may fulfil his promise he made for the continuity of his dynastic line. “You will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.” Here he alludes to the covenanted promise given to him by God through Nathan the prophet. Although the covenant promise to David was unconditional, individual participation in its blessing on the part of David’s royal descendants depended on their total obedience (“with all your heart and soul”) to the obligations of the Mosaic covenant.

However. both Solomon and his descendants fell short of their covenant obligations. This led to the division of the kingdom and eventually to the exile of both the northern and southern kingdoms to Babylon. It was only in the coming of Christ that the fallen tent of David would be restored and the promise of David’s eternal dynasty ultimately fulfilled.

When the nation and its king turned away from the requirements of the covenant, they experienced the covenant curses rather than blessings; but in all this God remained faithful to his covenant promises to Abraham and to David. In spite of all their failings, the promise of the covenant found its realisation in Jesus, King and Messiah.

After 40 years on the throne David died in Jerusalem, the “City of David”. He had been king in Hebron for seven years and in Jerusalem for 33. The dates are about 1010 to 970 BC.

Solomon, his son by Bathsheba and a young man full of promise, had already taken over the kingship.

In the Old Testament David stands out as a giant. He was a man of glaring faults. He was also a man of deep religious conviction, a man of great integrity. When he failed, and he failed badly by any standards, he was the first to acknowledge his faults and express repentance for his sin. In consequence, he experienced God’s mercy and forgiveness.

We can learn from his example. Not by saying that it does not matter if we sin, because it does. But that, having sinned, we need to acknowledge our sin and turn back to our loving God.

Mark 6:7-13

We now reach a new stage in the formation of Jesus’ disciples. There was a calling of

the first disciples to be “fishers of people”, then the choosing of twelve who would share in the very work of Jesus. Now the Twelve, the foundation of the future community, are being sent out to do exactly the same work that Jesus has been doing.

They have been given authority over unclean spirits, they preach repentance – that radical conversaion (metanoia, metanoia) to the vision of the Kingdom, anointing the sick with oil and healing them. Notice that these three activities cover the whole person: spiritual, mental and physical. Healing and wholeness, health and holiness. To be holy is to be whole.

They are instructed to travel lightly, bringing only what they absolutely need. No food or money or even a change of clothes. They will not need these things because they will be taken care of by the people they serve. They are to stay in the first house that takes them in. Overall, they are to show total dependence on and trust in God. This is freedom at its best. A model repeated by many saints and founders of religious congregations. (One thinks of such disparate cases as St Ignatius Loyola, Mother Teresa, the community in the book The Cross and the Switchblade.)

Do we really need all the baggage we carry through life? As someone has said: Those are really rich whose needs are the least. That is what Jesus is teaching us. And, of course, he was a living example.

The disciples went off and did the three central works of Jesus:

- They proclaimed the Kingdom and called for a radical change of heart from people so that they might see life in the way that Jesus, the Son of God, was proclaiming.

- They liberated many people from evil influences and compulsions. Freedom is of the essence of Christian discipleship.

- They anointed the sick with soothing oil and brought them healing and wholeness.

They not only preached the Kingdom; they made it a reality in people’s lives.

This is what we too are all called to do within the circumstances of our life. Having little but giving much.

Week 04 | Friday

Sir 47:2-11

Our final reading about David. It comes from the poetic and apocryphal Book of Sirach which contains a lengthy section (chaps 44-50) praising the great figures of Israel’s history.

Here we have Sirach’s eulogy of David which in poetic language recalls the highlights of his life.

He was a person set apart, in the way that in a sacrifice the fat is set apart from the rest of the flesh offering. From his youth, he stood out “playing with lions as though with young goats and with bears as though with lambs of the flock”.

He was still a boy when he took on the Philistine giant, Goliath, and brought him down with one shot from his sling, thus relieving his people of their shame. Because of this he won the enthusiastic support of the people. “They gave him credit for ten thousand”, in contrast to Saul who, they said, only killed his thousands.

He was regularly victorious against their enemy, the Philistines and crushed their “horn”, that is, their power.

At the same time, he constantly gave glory and praise to his Lord. David is famous in the Old Testament as a maker and performer of music. The Psalms have been attributed to him although, of course, he could not have written them all as their composition extends over a long period of time.

He created liturgies so that feasts could be celebrated with fitting splendour “causing the Lord’s holy name to be praised and the sanctuary to resound from dawn”.

The deeply sinful parts of his life are summed up in one short sentence: “The Lord forgave him his sins.” And he was totally rehabilitated: “[The Lord] exalted his strength forever.”

It is right to concentrate on a person’s virtues and achievements and especially their relationship with God and their fellow-men. That is what Sirach does here.

Unfortunately, the words of Mark Antony about Caesar in Shakespeare’s play are often too true: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” But a Latin tag is more to be followed: De mortuis nil nisi bonum (Say nothing but good about those who have died).

Yet, what makes many of the saints saints is precisely how sin was turned to good in their lives. We can think of Paul, Augustine, Ignatius Loyola among many others.

Mark 6:14-29

Jesus was now becoming well known over a wide area. There was much speculation as to who he was (a major theme of Mark’s gospel). Some were suggesting that he was John the Baptist (who had by this time been executed) come to life again, or that he was the prophet Elijah, who was expected to return just before the coming of the Messiah, or that he was a prophet in his own right, “like the prophets we used to have”. We know, of course, that all those speculations were wrong. The true answer will emerge very soon.

King Herod, steeped in superstition and full of fear and guilt was convinced that Jesus was a re-incarnation of John the Baptist whom he had beheaded. We then get the story as to how this happened.

Herod Antipas, also known as Herod the Tetrarch, was the son of Herod the Great, who was king when Jesus was born. When the older Herod died his kingdom was divided among his three surviving sons. Archelaus received half of the territory, Herod Antipas became ruler of Galilee and Perea, while Philip was the ruler of the northern territory on the east side of the Jordan. The title ‘Tetrarch’ indicates that he was ruler of one quarter of the whole territory.

It is clear that Herod had great respect for John as he would also have for Jesus later on. The problem arose because of John had denounced Herod’s taking the wife of his half-brother Herod Boethus, as his wife. This was in clear violation of Jewish law. The historian Josephus also says that Herod feared that John, so popular with the people, might instigate a riot against him.

It was this woman, Herodias, who now wanted to be rid of John but could not do so because of Herod’s respect for John. Herod had gone as far as arresting John but even when John was in prison, Herod loved to listen to him even though he was puzzled by John’s preaching.

Herodias saw her opportunity when Herod threw a party for his court to celebrate his birthday. She knew her husband’s weaknesses. Herodias’s daughter was brought in to dance and utterly captivated Herod. Deep in his cups, he made a rash promise. He would give her anything, even half of the territory he governed. Under the prompting of the mother, the girl makes the gruesome request for John’s head on a dish.

Herod was aghast but because of his oath and the presence of his guests, he dared not renege on his promise. John was beheaded and the head given to the mother. John’s disciples then take the body and give it a decent burial.

We might notice some similarities between this story and the passion of Jesus:

Both Herod and Pilate recognised in John and Jesus respectively people of obvious goodness of life, wisdom and integrity. The hatred of Herodias for John parallels the hatred of the Jewish leaders for Jesus – both called for execution by the ruler (Herod in one case, Pilate in the other). After the deaths of John and Jesus, disciples asked and received permission for a decent burial.

John is the precursor of Jesus not only in announcing the coming of Jesus but also in giving his life for the integrity of his beliefs and in bringing God’s message to the people.

We are called to do the same. To prepare the way for Jesus and his message must become an integral part of every Christian’s life. Without our cooperation, without our going ahead of Jesus, his message will not be heard.

Week 04 | Saturday

1 Kgs 3:4-13

Today we have our first reading on King Solomon. It tells of the source of Solomon’s proverbial wisdom. In the second part of the chapter, which we will not be reading, is the story of that wisdom in action when Solomon solved a dispute between two women over which of them was the real mother of two children, one living, one dead.

We are told today that Solomon goes to Gibeon to sacrifice. Gibeon lay to the north-west of Jerusalem and was in the territory of Benjamin. At the time of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, the Gibeonites tricked Joshua and Israel into a peace treaty at the time of the conquest of Canaan. The city was subsequently given to the tribe of Benjamin and set apart for the Levites. David avenged Saul’s violation of the Gibeonite treaty by the execution of seven of Saul’s descendants (see 2 Sam 21:1-9 and Monday’s reading of this week).

The reason for Gibeon’s importance was the presence there of the tabernacle and an ancient bronze altar. These must have been salvaged after the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines. There Solomon made a huge offering of 1,000 holocausts. (Later, of course, the tabernacle will be moved to the new temple that Solomon will build.)

While still in Gibeon, the Lord tells Solomon in a dream to ask for anything he wants.

Before the time of the prophets, dreams were one of the main channels by which God communicated with people. But in the New Testament also we see Joseph being spoken to by God three times in a dream (Matt 1:20; 2:12,22) and there is the vision of Peter in the Acts (10:10-16). It is not clear what would be the distinction between a dream and a vision.

In response to God’s command, Solomon praises the Lord for all that had been done through his father David. And these favours continue by God seating a son of David on his throne. But Solomon is very young and knows little about administration. The birth of Solomon is generally placed in approximately the middle of David’s 40-year reign, meaning that Solomon was about 20 years old at the beginning of his own reign and hence lacked experience in assuming the responsibilities of his office.

Moreover, he is king of a very large number of people, “too numerous to count”. Something of an exaggeration, of course, but from the small beginnings of a single family living in Egypt, the Israelites had increased to an extent approaching that anticipated in the promises given to Abraham and Jacob.

Solomon, therefore, asks the Lord to give him “an understanding heart” so that he can rule with equity and distinguish right from wrong. He prays for wisdom in practical affairs. It is a generous request, made not for himself but for the benefit of the people over whom he rules.

The Lord is deeply pleased that Solomon has not asked for what Near Eastern rulers traditionally looked for: long life, great wealth, the destruction of enemies. He has asked for wisdom, for deep insight into what is true and good. And so the Lord gives him what he asks: “I give you a heart so wise and understanding that there has never been anyone like you up to now, and after you there will come no one to equal you.”

And, because of his integrity and concern for the good of his people, Solomon will also get those things which he did not ask for – riches and glory, the like of which had never been seen until that time.

And indeed, Solomon would become famous both for his wisdom and also for his great wealth.

God today puts to me the same question he put to Solomon: “Ask something of me and I will give it to you.” What will I ask for? What do I really want? What do I really need? Let me not be too hasty in answering the question. Remember the promise of Jesus: “Seek first the kingdom and all these things will be added to you” (Luke 12:31)

The answer I give to this question can be very revealing of my attitudes, my values, my priorities and where I stand in my relationships with God, others and self.

Mark 6:30-34

The Twelve came back from their mission full of excitement at all they had done and taught. Jesus now told them to withdraw for a while for reflection and rest. This is what Jesus himself used to do. Large crowds were still mobbing Jesus and perhaps some of the apostles too so that they did not even have time to eat. This could have been a real time of temptation as the apostles began to glory in their new-found power and the resultant fame and popularity.

We also see here once more the balance in Jesus’ life. He was so available to all those in need, the poor, the sick, the outcasts but there was a limit to his availability. He knew when he needed to get away, to renew contact with his Father, to recharge his batteries (cf. Mk 1:35-37).

Some people are too self-centred and have a very poor awareness of other people’s needs and do not bother to meet them. On the other hand, there are those who need to be needed, their need is to have people looking constantly for them but the result can often be ‘burnout’ or breakdowns. There are times when we have to learn to be able to say No without feeling guilty.

So Jesus and his disciples take off in a boat to a solitary place where they will be left to themselves. Or that is what they thought. But the people saw them leaving and had a good idea where they were headed. While Jesus and his disciples crossed the lake in a boat, the people hurried along the lakeshore. When Jesus stepped out of the boat, he was faced by a huge crowd.

Jesus quickly decides that this is a time for availability. He is deeply moved by the people’s need, they were like lost sheep in need of a shepherd’s guidance. The people coming out to a desert place echoes the people of Israel in their wanderings. Here Jesus is the Shepherd of the New Israel. So he begins to teach them. Their first hunger was spiritual. They needed to understand what Jesus stood for and why he did the things he did. There is a eucharistic connection here and in what follows (the multiplication of loaves) and the teaching corresponds to what we now call the Liturgy of the Word during the Eucharist.

The story illustrates well the balance in Jesus’ life. As he did himself, he urges his disciples to retire and reflect on the meaning of what they are doing. Otherwise they may become active for activity’s sake or for other less worthy motives. At the same time, in this particular situation, Jesus sees that a response is called for. The day of reflection is abandoned and the people in their great need are served. Let us learn, through careful discernment, to do likewise. To do the right thing at the right time.

Week 05 | Monday

1 Kings 8:1-7, 9-13

As we begin today’s reading Solomon has completed the building of his magnificent temple as a permanent dwelling place for the Lord. The building is described in 1 Kings 6 and we are told it took seven years, not really very long by the standards of the time for what seems to have been a very large structure. Many of Europe’s great churches took much longer to complete.

Chapter 8, from which today’s reading is taken, describes the dedication of the Temple and the installation there of the Ark of the Covenant.

At the instructions of King Solomon, the elders, leaders and princes of the people brought the ark up in solemn procession from the city of David, also referred to as Zion. As we saw in a previous reading, David had previously brought the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem, where it had been temporarily placed.

During the festival in the month of Ethanim all the people of Israel gathered in the presence of Solomon. Ethanim was a month in the Canaanite calendar which corresponded to the 7th month of the Jewish year. The feast which took place in this month was that of the Tabernacles (or Tents). This was eleven months after the completion of the Temple and the 12th year of Solomon’s reign. This feast was an appropriate time for the transition of God’s dwelling among formerly nomadic (tent-dwelling) tribes to a permanent abode among a now settled people.

When all the elders had assembled, the priests then carried the ark and the Meeting Tent with all the sacred vessels which were inside. The Tent of Meeting was where the Ark was kept. It was called the ‘Tent of Meeting’ from the days in the desert when Moses used to ‘meet’ there with Yahweh. Solomon and all the people then offered a sacrifice of sheep and oxen “too many to number or count”.

The Ark was carried by the priests to its place beneath the wings of the cherubim in the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies in the Temple. These cherubim are described earlier in chapter 6:23-28. The passage says in part: “In the sanctuary were two cherubim, each ten cubits high, made of olive wood. Each wing of a cherub measured five cubits so that the space from wing tip to wing tip of each was 10 cubits. The cherubim were identical in size and shape and each was 10 cubits high. The cherubim were placed in the inmost part of the temple, with their wings spread wide, so that one wing of each cherub touched a side wall while the other wing, pointing toward the middle of the room touched the corresponding wing of the second cherub. The cherubim, too, were overlaid with gold.” (A cubit was about 0.45 metres or 1.5 feet.)

The cherubim had their wings spread protectively over the Ark, sheltering it and its carrying poles.

Inside the Ark were just the two stone tablets containing the Law, which Moses had received from Yahweh on Mount Sinai and which Moses had placed there at Horeb.

As soon as the priests had left the Ark in the Holy of Holies, the place was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could no longer minister there. “The Lord’s glory had filled the Temple of the Lord.” It was a clear endorsement of everything that had been done and a confirmation of his presence, just as a visible manifestation of the presence of the Lord had descended on the tabernacle at Sinai (see Ex 40:33-35).

Our reading finishes with a brief prayerful poem spoken by Solomon:

The Lord intends to dwell in the dark cloud,
I have truly built you a princely house,
a dwelling where you may abide forever.

The image of the Lord dwelling in a dense cloud is one often found in the Scriptures. And we see it in the Gospel during the experience of the Transfiguration (Matt 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36).

Solomon’s temple was later replaced by the massive structure erected by Herod the Great. Today, except for the fragment of the Wailing Wall, it is no more and its place has been taken by an Islamic mosque.

But, long before that, as Jesus died and said “It is finished”, the veil of the Holy of Holies, where the Ark was kept, was torn open to the common gaze. God was no longer present there. Instead, under the new covenant, signed in Jesus’ blood, he is now present in his people. The temple now is not a building but the community of disciples. And that is where we are both to find him and reveal him. “As often as you do or do not do it to the very least of my brothers and sisters you do or do not do it to me.”

As Teilhard de Chardin put it so beautifully, we are living in a “divine milieu”. God is in the very air that we breathe and in every person and experience that we encounter.

Mark 6:53-56

Last Saturday we saw Jesus and the Twelve landing at a remote place by the lakeshore to spend a day of quietness and reflection. But, as soon as they disembarked, they were met by a huge number of people for whom Jesus, as their Shepherd, was filled with the deepest compassion. After teaching them at length, he arranged with his disciples for the 5,000 people there to be fed. After this, the disciples were sent off in their boat to Bethsaida. On the way, they ran into a huge storm. In the middle of it Jesus appeared walking on the water. When he got into the boat and commanded the wind and the waves there was total calm. In our weekday readings from Mark, these two scenes are passed over at this point.

Today we have a passage summarising what Jesus was doing for the people. It indicates the tremendous hunger of the people to be cured and made whole by Jesus. The people recognise him immediately and go everywhere bringing along those in need of healing. Jesus, in turn, was visiting towns and villages. The sick, strong in their faith, only asked to be allowed to touch the edges of his outer garment and everyone who touched him was cured.

Let us pray that our influence on others at home, at work and elsewhere may have a truly healing effect.

Week 05 | Tuesday

1 Kings 8:22-23, 27-30

Having asked for wisdom in governing, Solomon now prays for himself and all the people. He begins with the covenant principle of mutual faithfulness – God towards his people, the people towards their God. God’s kindness to his people flows from the covenant made with Moses at Sinai but it is conditional on their faithfulness. This is the core of the covenant agreement. In this passage there are there two applications: Yahweh has kept his promise by the building of the Temple, may he keep it also in preserving the stability of the dynasty.

Solomon makes his prayer publicly in the presence of all the people. He begins by indicating the uniqueness of the God of Israel. No other god has acted in history as has the God of Israel, performing great miracles and so directing the course of events so that his long-range covenant promises are fulfilled. Yahweh has kept his promises to the people, who for their part are faithful to you with their whole heart. Of course, the second part is not completely true; the Old Testament is full of incidents where the people violated their side of the covenant. In particular, Yahweh has honoured his promises to Solomon’s father, David, and their fulfilment is seen in the Temple, which David had been told would become a reality in Solomon’s reign. (This last statement from v.24 is not in today’s reading.)

Solomon then speaks in wonder at how a God for whom the heavens themselves are not big enough can contain himself within the confines of the temple that Solomon has built in his honour. “Can it indeed be that God dwells among men on earth? If the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple I have built.” An idea which some of those who followed Solomon in later times tended to forget.

The construction of the Temple and the appearance of a visible manifestation of the presence of God within its courts could – and did in fact – give rise to the idea that God was irreversibly and exclusively bound to the Temple in a way that guaranteed his assistance to Israel, no matter how the people lived. Solomon, however, had recognised that, even though God had chosen to dwell among his people in a special and localised way, he far transcended being contained by any created thing, however magnificent.

Solomon concludes his prayer by begging God to continue to watch over the temple and to listen to his prayers and those of all the people “which they offer in this place”. When an Israelite was unable to pray in the Temple itself, he was to direct his prayers towards the place where God had pledged to be present among his people.

In our churches, too, we can wonder how the God of the whole universe can be so specially present in our tabernacles. This is a marvellous source of comfort for us and we should use all the opportunities we can to “drop in for a visit” and ask Jesus to be part of our lives, our work, our families, our day.

At the same time, we can reflect that Jesus’ sacramental presence in the tabernacle is a reminder of his real presence in all the people we meet and in all the experiences we have. Every person, every place, every experience is a sacrament of God’s loving presence. Even when we are far from any church, Jesus is close to us.

Let us be close to him.

Mark 7:1-13

A group of self-righteous scribes and Pharisees come up from Jerusalem to observe Jesus. Obviously word has reached Jerusalem about what Jesus has been doing up in Galilee. They immediately notice that Jesus and his disciples do not observe some of the “traditions of the elders”, especially with regard to the washing of hands before eating. These traditions were a body of highly detailed but unwritten human laws which the Scribes and Pharisees regarded as having the same binding force as the Law of Moses. Paul admits to having been a fanatical upholder of these traditions (cf. Galatians 1:14)

It is hard not to come to the conclusion that many of these observances were originally based on practical experience. Eating without washing one’s hands could be a source of sickness, although they knew nothing about germs or bacteria. Because sometimes it could be diseased, eating pork made some people seriously sick so the meat was banned altogether. But in order to ensure these hygienic requirements would be observed they were linked to a religious sanction. Violating them was not just bad for your health, but a violation of God’s will. To ignore them was to disobey God.

Clearly Jesus was not against the washing of hands as such, even as a religious observance. What he was against was the legalism by which the mere observance of some external actions was equated with being a devout lover of God. He quotes from the prophet Isaiah (Is 29:13):

This people honours me only with lip service,
while their hearts are far from me.
The worship they offer me is worthless;
the doctrines they teach are only human regulations.

The real commandments of God, e.g. unconditional love of the neighbour, are neglected in favour of what are purely human traditions. Jesus illustrates the hypocrisy involved by showing how some supposedly devout people got around the basic responsibility of respect for parents (which the Mosaic law demanded) by claiming that they had consecrated all they owned to God and the temple, while in fact keeping it for their own use. The “Qorban” was a way of supposedly making a gift to God by an offering to the Temple but in such a way that the donor could continue to use it for himself and not give it to others, even needy parents. (Like the priest who said, “Each week I throw all the collection up in the air for God. What stays up, he keeps; the rest comes to me.”)

We sometimes meet Catholics who confuse the essential service of God with some religious rulings. They judge people by whether they eat fish on Friday or not. They piously go through all kinds of devotional exercises but their conversation is full of gossip and destructive criticism of others.

Others get tied down by scruples: Did I say my penance after Confession? When the more important question would be, Did I change my behaviour? How did I keep my promise not to repeat the same sins?

Or did I observe the full hour of fasting before communion? When the more important issue would be, Does my going to communion bring me closer to God and make me a more loving person with others?

There can be a bit of the Pharisee in all of us and that is the real subject of the teaching today. We will only be judged by the depth of our love and nothing else.

Week 05 | Wednesday

1 Kings 10:1-10

The story of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon gives an opportunity for the sacred writer to describe the extraordinary magnificence of the Jerusalem court.

Archaeological evidence suggests that Sheba is to be identified with a mercantile kingdom that flourished in southwest Arabia c. 900-450 BC. It profited from the sea trade of India and east Africa by transporting luxury commodities north to Damascus and Gaza on caravan routes through the Arabian Desert. It is possible that Solomon’s fleet of ships threatened Sheba’s continued dominance of this trading business. The queen, too, may have wanted to establish better trading relationships. Solomon dominated Transjordan and, holding Ezion-Geber, controlled the caravan route from north Arabia to Syria and Egypt. Judging by the descriptions of both Solomon and the queen it was a highly lucrative trade for both of them.

However, some hold that the queen mentioned here more probably ruled over one of the Sabaean settlements of northern Arabia. The Hebrew Bible distinguishes between the more usual Sheba (used here) and Seba which it associates more closely with Cush, or Ethiopia. The name Seba came to be used for the far South, just as Tarshish stands for the Western limits of the earth, figuring as one of the great tribes of travelling merchants. This far-off people, together with the kings of Arabia and Seba, will come to do homage to the future King, as implied in Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus (Matt 2:11, referring to Ps 72:1-11 and Is 60:6).

The purpose of the queen’s visit was to test Solomon’s wisdom, whose fame had reached as far as her kingdom. Arriving with a large retinue and weighed down with expensive gifts, she asked him questions on all the things in which she was particularly interested. He dealt easily and competently with every problem she posed to him.

It seems that the queen of Sheba recognised a connection between the wisdom of Solomon and the God he served. Jesus used her example to condemn the people of his own day who had not recognised that “one greater than Solomon” was in their midst (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31).

When the queen saw the wealth and opulence with which Solomon was surrounded – his palace, the food on his table, the number and dress of his attendants and the holocausts he offered in the Temple, she was rendered speechless. She said that, although she had been sceptical of the reports she had heard, having seen with her own eyes she realised she had been only told half the truth.

Solomon far surpassed all her expectations both in his wisdom and his prosperity. Indeed, she said, blessed were the king’s court and attendants to be always in the presence of such wisdom. In fact, the reports she had received at home gave no idea of the reality she now saw with her own eyes.

She concluded by calling blessings on the God who put a person of such wisdom and judgement as Solomon on Israel’s throne. However, it does not imply her personal recognition of the God of the Israelites; there is no hint that she abandoned belief in her own gods.

Before leaving, she gave even more gifts, including 120 gold talents, an enormous amount of money. Never again would anyone bring such an abundance of gifts as the Queen of Sheba brought to Solomon.

Underlying this story, of course, is the understanding that all Solomon’s magnificence was a sign of God’s blessings on his people. He and he alone was the source of all these blessings. It is clear that the description of this visit was not merely to describe the purpose of the queen’s visit to experience Solomon’s wisdom at first hand. For the writer, the focus is not on the queen but on the magnificence Solomon’s court as a reflection of Israel’s glory and God’s special favour on them as a people.

We too need to remember that all the good things we have and experience are not simply the result of our own efforts. They can disappear just as quickly as they came. We can never claim anything as absolutely our own.

We are simply stewards of all that comes into our hands. They are not merely for our own enjoyment, least of all to be used at the expense of others. They are given as things by which we can be of service to others. Everything is for one purpose only: God’s praise and service. And an awareness of that is a form of real wisdom.

Mark 7:14-23

After defending himself against the accusations of some Pharisees and scribes, about his not observing the traditions of the elders, Jesus now turns to the people. He enunciates what for him is the main principle:

- Nothing that goes into the body from outside can make a person ritually or religiously unclean.

- What makes a person unclean is the filth that comes from inside their mind and spoken through their mouth or expressed in action.

This was a major issue in the earliest days of the Church and was dealt with by the Council of Jerusalem. The story is told in the Acts of the Apostles. The first Christians were all Jews who continued to observe Jewish customs. But when non-Jews began to be accepted into the Christian communities, should they also be obliged to follow these laws and customs? It became clear that, from a religious point of view, no food could be called unclean. This helped to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. It has been pointed out that, immediately after this (cf. tomorrow’s reflection), Jesus entered Gentile territory, something he did not often do in his own ministry.

Even Jesus’ disciples seemed shocked by Jesus’ teaching (probably reflecting the reactions of some of the early Jewish Christians). Jesus repeats what he says in the light of the Kingdom he was proclaiming. No food that goes into a person from the outside can make a person unclean. Food does not go into the heart but into the stomach and ultimately passes out as waste. Real uncleanness is in the heart, in the mind. Real uncleanness comes from inside people in the form of “evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly”. This is real uncleanness and the source is in ourselves and not in what we eat.

As Christians, we do not normally worry about clean and unclean foods on religious grounds but we can sometimes judge people’s religious commitment by their observance or non-observance purely external things – a nun not wearing a habit, not taking holy water on going into the church, taking communion in the hand/in the mouth.

We may have got rid of the problem of unclean foods but there are many other ways by which we focus on trivial externals while ignoring the real evils, the places where real love is absent – in ourselves.

Week 05 | Thursday

1 Kgs 11:4-13

As his life progressed, Solomon moved steadily downhill. The sacred writer implies that women were the cause of his downfall, and especially foreign women. Apart from the daughter of Egypt’s Pharaoh, he took many foreign women as his wives. Among these were many from ethnic groups with which the Israelites were forbidden to marry. The reason for this prohibition was the danger that one would be tempted to worship their gods. As is the case here.

Solomon fell in love with many such women and, towards the end of his life, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines (presumably something of a literary exaggeration). The problem was not so much the number of women in his life – for even David had a number of wives. But these women turned him away from Yahweh as his God. Unlike his father, David, “his heart was no longer entirely with the Lord”.

Among the gods Solomon began to worship under the influence of his wives were Astarte (Asthtoreth), the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom (Molech), the idol of the Ammonites. Worship of Molech not only severely jeopardised the recognition of the absolute kingship of the Lord over his people but also involved (on rare occasions) the practice of child sacrifice.

To appease his wives, Solomon built shrines to Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and to Molech on a hill facing Jerusalem. And he did the same for many of his wives, who openly worshipped their own gods.

Twice in the past God had appeared to Solomon: the first time when he asked Solomon what special gift he wanted and Solomon, setting set aside wealth and military power, had asked for wisdom. In the second vision, just after Solomon had completed the Temple, Yahweh had promised many blessings on Solomon. But now, God is angry with him, especially because of his repeated idolatry and his violation of the covenant. Solomon had broken the most basic demands of the covenant and thereby severely undermined the entire covenant relationship between God and his people.

In punishment, his kingdom would be given over to not to a son but to one of his servants. However, for the sake of David, Solomon would remain king until his death. Also, for David’s sake, Solomon’s son would be left king of just one tribe. In this way, the promise of an everlasting dynasty for David’s line would be, at least partially, observed.

As Jerusalem contained the temple built by David’s son, the destiny of Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty were closely linked. The temple represented God’s royal palace, where his earthly throne (the Ark) was situated and where he had pledged to be present as Israel’s Great King.

Solomon’s foreign marriages were primarily contracted for political ends and the pagan shrines were intended for his wives and for traders. Such contacts, however, jeopardised the purity of the religion of Yahweh, and the author interprets the situation in the spirit and language of Deuteronomy. God punishes Solomon’s impiety by raising up enemies abroad (Hadad the Edomite) and at home, (Jeroboam will take over 10 tribes as king, leaving only Judah to Solomon’s son).

In the end, Solomon’s great wisdom could not prevent him being ruled by his heart and his political and economic interests.

How often have we, too, been ruled by our emotions and other considerations and been led into behaviour which we know is wrong? It is so easy for us to rationalise, which means creating false reasons to justify what we do. And yet, the only way to go for our own long-term good is the way of truth, integrity and genuine love. Again we pray for that wisdom which gives us an insight into where truth and goodness are to be found.

The road to that wisdom, of course, is the Way of Jesus.

Mark 7:24-30

Having challenged some of the religious principles of Pharisees and Scribes, Jesus now pointedly goes into Gentile territory. The next three stories take place in non-Jewish areas. Why did Jesus go to the city of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast? It may have been to give him some breathing space from the crowds which pressed in on him everywhere. Later, he will move on to Sidon and then eastwards by way of the Sea of Galilee to the area known as Decapolis (Ten Towns). All of these places were dominated by Gentiles. Because the people there recognised his healing powers, he ministered to them also.

We are told that he entered a house in Tyre and did not want to be recognised. Why was this? Because his mission was only to his own people? Because people without faith only saw in Jesus a wonder worker? Nevertheless, he was already too well known even here to escape notice. His fame had spread even to these places.

It is then that a Gentile woman came to him. She was a Greek but Syro-phoenician by birth. She prostrated herself before Jesus and begged him to exorcise the evil spirit in her daughter. Jesus’ answer seems somewhat strange and out of character. “Let the children be fed first. For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” Jesus’ words suggest an image where the children of the family are fed first and then the leftovers are given to the dogs under the table. In so speaking, Jesus indicates the prior claim of the Jews to his ministry. In fact, we see this, too, in the missionary work of Paul. Whenever he arrived in a town for the first time, he always went to the Jewish synagogue first to preach the message of Christ and only later to the Gentiles. Because of the shared tradition of Jews and Christians they were the obvious people to hear the message first.

Jews (and also Muslims) avoided dogs as unclean animals. They were unclean because they ate all kinds of things indiscriminately. The name ‘dogs’ was sometimes applied by Jews to Gentiles and for the same reason. It is not unlikely that the woman was aware of this disparaging title. It is also important to sense the tone in which Jesus spoke and this is indicated by the reply of the woman. It is done in a mood of friendly banter. This is clear from the immediate response of the woman. “Lord (notice the title), even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” In other words, they do not wait until the children are finished eating. They eat simultaneously, even though they only get scraps.

Her powerful faith is immediately rewarded and her daughter is healed. It is a story anticipating the faith of future Gentiles who will become Christians. Let us pray that that faith may be ours also. We know that Jesus excludes absolutely no one from his mercy and healing power. Both as individuals and communities, may we too be as inclusive as possible in our relationships.

Week 05 | Friday

1 Kgs 11:29-32; 12:19

The prophecy made in the time of Solomon is now being carried out. Solomon has died and his son Rehoboam wants to take over the throne. But, as we saw, God was greatly displeased with the idolatrous behaviour of Solomon and would deny the kingdom to his son.

Instead, Jeroboam, a former servant in Solomon’s court will become the ruler and Rehoboam will be rejected by the people. Jeroboam was from Ephraim and, as a resourceful and rich young man who impressed Solomon, he had been put in charge of the whole labour force of the tribe of Joseph.

In today’s reading, as Jeroboam is leaving Jerusalem, he meets with the prophet Ahijah. There are just the two of them present and the prophet is wearing a new cloak. Then, in a highly symbolic gesture, he indicates what is going to happen. (It is not unusual in the Old Testament for prophets to make statements by symbolic actions which are not only meaningful but produce actual results – see Jeremiah 18:11ff.)

Ahijah takes his new cloak and cuts it into twelve pieces. At the same time he tells Jeroboam that the kingdom is being taken from Solomon and ten of the tribes of Israel (each one was named after one of the 12 sons of Jacob) will be given to Jeroboam. They will form what will be known as the Northern Kingdom (or Israel or Ephraim).

The two remaining pieces represent just one tribe left for Solomon’s successor, namely, Judah which had absorbed Simeon. They would become the Southern Kingdom (or Judah). This division in fact goes back to the time of the Judges but under David and Solomon the two territories had become temporarily united. Now they were splitting again – and for good.

The reason that part of Solomon’s kingdom will remain within his family is because of God’s loyalty to David and also for the sake of Jerusalem, which was in the territory of Judah. It was God’s chosen city, the city of David and the place where his earthly presence was symbolised in the Temple.

It is not in our reading but Ahijah goes on to give the reasons why the most of Solomon’s kingdom is being taken from his family and his immediate successor. It was because of Solomon’s worshipping of false gods and departing from the statutes that had been so faithfully observed by his father, David. Nevertheless, Solomon would be allowed to keep his throne up to his death and then one tribe would be given to his son to rule over. And, if Jeroboam is faithful in his service of Yahweh, God will be with him. He will have a lasting dynasty and it will be the kingdom of Israel.

When Solomon heard about this, he regarded Jeroboam as a rebel and a threat to his rule. Jeroboam was forced to flee in exile to the royal court of Egypt where he stayed until the death of Solomon.

This spelt the end of David’s kingdom and it will not be resurrected – in a very different way – until the coming of Jesus.

Today we have to acknowledge that in a way the kingdom of Jesus is divided into many factions, both within the Catholic Church and between many Christian denominations. It is surely not his will as expressed in Jesus’ prayer to his Father at the Last Supper: “That they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (e.g. John 17:20-23).

Let none of us be a source of division in our own church or parish or in our relations with Christians of other denominations. Let there be for all of us one Lord and one Shepherd.

Mark 7:31-37

Jesus is still in Gentile territory. He has now moved east from the Mediterranean coast to the interior on the east side of the Sea of Galilee in the area of the Decapolis (Greek for “Ten Towns”).

A deaf and dumb man is brought to Jesus for healing. He takes the man aside, puts his fingers in the man’s ears, touches his tongue with spittle, looks up to heaven and prays, “Be opened”. Immediately the man’s ears are opened, his tongue loosed and he is able speak plainly. As often happens in this gospel, the people who witnessed the miracle are told not to say anything about it to anyone “but the more Jesus insisted, the more widely they published it”.

Their admiration was unbounded. “He has done all things well,” they said, “he makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak.”

As often happens in the Gospel and especially in Mark we have here much more than a miracle story, the healing of a physical ailment. We are approaching a climactic part of this gospel and this passage leads into it. What Jesus does to this man is something that is meant to happen to every one of his followers, including his immediate disciples.

We all need to have our ears opened so that we can hear and understand in its fullness the message of Jesus. In addition to that, once we have heard and understood, the natural

consequence is that we go out and speak openly to the world about what we have heard and understood. Both hearing and speaking are inseparable for the Christian disciple.

And so in the older form of the baptismal rite and it still may be used in the current liturgy, the celebrant may touch the ears of the one being baptised and put saliva on the lips. (Saliva was believed to have healing powers. And in this the ancients were right; it is in fact a kind of antibiotic. It is why animals also lick their wounds.) This rite symbolises the grace of the sacrament by which the newly baptised (I speak of an adult) hears and accepts the Word of God and undertakes the responsibility of proclaiming it in word and action.

And, as in today’s story, when we have truly experienced the power of that message and the love of God in our own lives, we cannot but do what that man did – broadcast it far and wide.

Week 05 | Saturday

1 Kgs 12:26-32; 13:33-34

Today is our last reading from the First Book of Kings for a while.

While Solomon’s former courtier, Jeroboam, ruled over 10 of the tribes of Israel, Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, ruled over Judah (including Simeon) which contained Jerusalem and the Temple. For Jeroboam this meant that the people in Jeroboam’s territory might still continue to go to Jerusalem to worship and could be won over to give their allegiance to Rehoboam, who would, in turn, get rid of Jeroboam. Jeroboam did not have confidence in the divine promise given to him through the prophet Ahijah (see yesterday’s Reading and 1 Kings 11:38) and thus took action that led to his losing God’s blessing on his kingship.

He made two calves and built two shrines, one in Bethel and the other in Dan, to house them. Pagan gods of the Arameans and Canaanites were often represented as standing on calves or bulls as symbols of their strength and fertility. To the people he said: “You have been going up to Jerusalem long enough. Here (in these images) is your God, O Israel, who brought you from the land of Egypt.”

Jeroboam’s intention was not to adopt another god, but to use the symbol of Baal-hadad to represent the Israelites’ invisible God. Such representations were never used; Yahweh could not properly be represented by a human-made image. In doing so, Jeroboam was reducing Yahwism to the level of the surrounding religions. It was very similar to what Aaron did when the people waited impatiently for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai and made the golden calf. Like Aaron, Jeroboam attempted to combine the pagan calf symbol with the worship of the Lord, although he apparently attempted no physical representation of the Lord – no “god” stood on the backs of his bulls (as in the case of the Canaanites).

Bethel and Dan had long been places of worship. Dan was located in the far north of the kingdom near the source of the River Jordan. In the time of the Judges, there was a similar paganised form of worship practised here. Bethel was situated about 20 km (12 miles) north of Jerusalem, close to the border of Ephraim but within the territory of Benjamin. It held an important place in the history of Israel’s worship of Yahweh. The two sites marked the limits of the new northern kingdom and the clear implication was that it was not necessary to go beyond them to worship the Lord.

“This led to sin,” says the writer. This tactic of Jeroboam violated the second part of the First Commandment (the carving of idols for worship) and it inevitably led to the violation of the first part (“You shall not have other gods besides me”). What is worse, although Jeroboam intended the worship of Yahweh (but not in Jerusalem), it opened the way for full pagan practices to come into Israel’s religious rites. This happened especially under King Ahab.

Jeroboam also built temples in high places. When they entered Canaan, the Israelites often followed the Canaanite tradition (and other cultural traditions too) of locating altars on high hills. These were probably former places to worship Baal. It is clear that the Israelites were forbidden to take over pagan altars and high places and use them for the worship of the Lord. Altars were to be built only at divinely sanctioned sites. It is not clear whether a multiplicity of altars was totally forbidden provided the above conditions were met. It seems, however, that these conditions were not followed even in the time of Solomon, and pagan high places were being used for the worship of the Lord. These practices would lead in time to a falling away from the true worship of Yahweh and involve the mixing of different religious practices, which was strongly condemned.

For all of these innovations, Jeroboam began to provide priests to minister at the shrines. But these priests were from the common people and not from the tribe of Levi which was the Mosaic tradition. It is likely that Levite priests in his kingdom had migrated to Jerusalem (and the Temple) because non-Levites had been promoted as priests for the worship in Dan and Bethel or because they declined to function at these shrines.

Jeroboam also instituted a feast to correspond to the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles for which the people would normally travel to Jerusalem. Now they could celebrate the feast in Bethel. Priests from the shrines in the high places were appointed to officiate at Bethel.

Finally, Jeroboam himself offered sacrifices and overstepped his privileges as king by assuming the role of priest.

It is clear that Jeroboam did all of this not out of religious conviction but simply to protect his throne. His motives were political and not religious. He had to keep his people away from Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah. But precisely for that reason and for neglecting clear warnings he was given [not in our readings], Jeroboam incurred the wrath of God and was ultimately destroyed.

The story reminds us of the dangers of abusing religion for other ends. The mutual relationship of church and state is always a complex issue.

The end of our commitment to Jesus Christ is to join with him in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. It is to bring us closer to God and to each other, to lead us to an ever deeper understanding of what is true and good, which should be a source of justice and peace and unity. But it can so often become, as we well know, a source of terrible divisions, hatred, violence and destruction.

It is also the case that religion when lived on the very highest level can be a source of division and hostility to those who feel threatened by it. Jesus said very provocatively that he had come to bring not peace but the sword and the division of families. But this a very different issue from the abuse of religion and we need to distinguish both. As Christians we cannot isolate ourselves from the important concerns of our communities.

Religion is false when it leads to hatred and destruction. Religion is true when it leads to unity and the creation of more good.

But in either case, religion will never be free from divisions because all true religion is a sign of contradiction and a challenge to conventional thinking.

The story reminds us of the dangers of abusing religion for other ends. The mutual relationship of church and state is always a complex issue.

The end of our commitment to Jesus Christ is to join with him in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. It is to bring us closer to God and to each other, to lead us to an ever deeper understanding of what is true and good, which should be a source of justice and peace and unity. But it can so often become, as we well know, a source of terrible divisions, hatred, violence and destruction.

It is also the case that religion when lived on the very highest level can be a source of division and hostility to those who feel threatened by it. Jesus said very provocatively that he had come to bring not peace but the sword and the division of families. But this a very different issue from the abuse of religion and we need to distinguish both. As Christians we cannot isolate ourselves from the important concerns of our communities.

Religion is false when it leads to hatred and destruction. Religion is true when it leads to unity and the creation of more good.

But in either case, religion will never be free from divisions because all true religion is a sign of contradiction and a challenge to conventional thinking.

Mark 8:1-10

Today we have the second of two multiplication stories found in Mark. The first with 5,000 people was in a predominantly Jewish area while this one with 4,000 people is in mainly Gentile territory. Jesus is reaching out to both groups. The people have nothing to eat and are hungry. The meaning is both physical and spiritual.

Once again we see Mark indicating the emotional response of Jesus. He is filled with compassion for the people in their need. “I feel compassion for all these people… If I send them off home hungry they will collapse on the way… Some have come a great distance.”

They will collapse “on the way”, on the road. Jesus is the Way, the Road. To walk the road of Jesus, we need a certain kind of nourishment. This is what Jesus came to give.

The disciples, interpreting Jesus literally, as they usually do, ask: “Where could anyone get bread to feed these people in a deserted place like this?” In the presence of Jesus, the question answers itself but the disciples have not yet clicked. In Mark’s gospel they are often shown to be without an understanding of just who their Master is. That is because they represent us.

The disciples are asked what they can supply. Seven loaves and a few fish is all they have.

There is a strong eucharistic element in this, as in the former story. The people are told to sit down. “He took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks (eucharistesas, ’ eucaristhsas in the Greek), he broke them and handed them to his disciples to distribute. And they distributed them among the crowd.”

Again we note that Jesus himself does not give out the food the people need. It comes from him but his distributed by his disciples. The same is today. It is our task to feed the hungry – both physically and spiritually. All were filled – 4,000 people altogether – and even so there were seven (a perfect number) baskets left over. A sign of God’s abundance shared with his people.

Again, as before, “He sent them away and, immediately, getting into the boat with his disciples, went to the region of Dalmanutha”, back to Jewish territory. Jesus was leaving no room for any misinterpretations of what he had done. The disciples too are quickly removed from the scene. There was to be no self-congratulation or glorying in their connections with Jesus the wonder worker. Through the miracle the teaching had been given and that was it.

Lord, teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to labour and seek no reward
save that of knowing that I do your holy will.

Week 06 | Monday

Jas 1:1-11

Today we return to the New Testament and for the next two weeks we will be reading from the Letter of James. There is a refreshing directness about this letter. It does not beat about the bush and pulls no punches in calling Christians to order. The emphasis is very much on doing - actions speak louder than words.

The letter is addressed to the “twelve tribes in the dispersion (or diaspora)”, that is, to Jewish Christians scattered over the Mediterranean countries. James sends them greetings of joy. In spite of what he is going to say, he is not to be seen as a pourer of cold water.

In today’s reading he makes three related points:

A, He begins by addressing his readers as “brothers (and sisters)”. He does so 15 times in this short letter. He may need to rebuke them but he does so in a spirit of fraternal love.

First, he urges his readers to see in their trials as Christians a source of joy - “The testing of your faith produces perseverance.” We see the same when Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount said: “Happy are you when people insult you and persecute you… because you are my followers” (Matt 5:11). Speaking from his own experience, Paul said the same: “We also boast of our troubles, because we know that trouble produces endurance, endurance brings God’s approval and his approval creates hope” (Rom 5:3). The trials that James mentions here are those that come from outside. In tomorrow’s reading he will speak of the inner trials of temptation to wrongdoing.

“We don’t want failure, humiliation, sickness, powerlessness, poverty or inferiority of any kind,” write Fr Ron Rolheiser, “yet these, more than success and glamour, are what produce character and depth inside us.” Obviously, we do not go out of our way to look for such things but, when they come, their long-term results can be beneficial both for ourselves and others.

We can get upset sometimes when we see the Church attacked or rubbished in the media. Yet experience has shown again and again that nothing strengthens and matures one’s faith than to have it challenged. When things go too easily our faith becomes flabby and weak. The Church is always strongest where it is the object of persecution and attack.

St Ignatius Loyola once said he hoped that the Jesuits would always experience persecution; for him, it was a sign they were doing their job of proclaiming the Gospel. We should not be worried when the Church is attacked, only when it is ignored. Then we really know that the salt has lost its taste.

B, James tells us pray for wisdom. Wisdom here is not something abstract and academic. It is not just a vast knowledge of Church doctrine. Rather it is a deep insight into how to live the Gospel and do God’s work. It is the gift to know that even in suffering and setbacks the love of God may be guiding and strengthening us. For those who ask, it will be given simply and unreservedly. But it needs to be asked for in faith, that is, with a deep trust that God always wants the best for us.

We are not to be like a wave on the sea driven here and there by the wind. Through our faith and trust, the Letter to the Ephesians tells us “we shall no longer be children, carried by the waves and blown about by every shifting wind of the teaching of deceitful people… Instead, by speaking the truth in a spirit of love, we must grow up in every way to Christ, who is the Head” (Eph 4:14-15).

This search for wisdom is to be done with confidence, sure that God will give this gift which we need to be followers of Jesus. It gives us a certain self-confidence which does not mean that we possess all the truth. But we know what we know and are ready to learn more. The vacillating person will not get anywhere.

In times of trial this wisdom is greatly needed so that we can respond in an appropriate way, in truth and love.

C, Thirdly, the poor man should be aware of his special status in the eyes of God. “Happy are the poor in spirit for they truly belong in the Kingdom of God” (Matt 5:3). With nothing of their own, their total dependence is on God. Throughout the letter the author reaffirms the teaching of Jesus that worldly prosperity is not necessarily a sign of God’s favour, as the people of the Old Testament and even Jesus’ own disciples tended to believe in their early days with Jesus (cf. Mark 10:24-26). See also the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

The rich man - if all his dependence has been on his material wealth - is really in a lowly position in spite of his status and power. For he will pass away “like the flower of the field” and will leave this world with nothing. The rich man needs to be aware of how vulnerable and weak he is. His wealth can evaporate in the same way the hot midday sun makes the grass and flowers droop in its heat. The truly rich are not those who have the most but rather those whose needs are the least.

James will have a lot more to say to the poor and the rich as the letter proceeds.

Mark 8:11-13

The Pharisees, disturbed by what Jesus is saying and doing, demand some ‘heavenly’ sign to indicate that his authority comes from God. He refuses to acquiesce to their request. They will not get a sign on their terms.

The irony, of course, is that Jesus’ whole life is a sign, a sign of God’s loving presence among us. In Mark, the ordinary people can see this clearly. Only the leaders and - in Mark - Jesus’ own disciples are slow to learn.

In the immediately foregoing passage Jesus has just fed 4,000 people with seven loaves of bread and a few fish. The signs are there in abundance but the Pharisees cannot see because they do not want to see. Their blindness is a central theme to this part of Mark, as we shall see.

We too need to be aware of our own blindness and our failure to see the ‘signs’ of God’s love operating in our everyday lives.

Week 06 | Tuesday

Jas 1:12-18

A lovely passage from James today.

It is clear that the Christians James is writing to are under strong pressures in the living of their faith. As in our own day, there were the pulls of a society which set great store by material wealth, social status and influence. In addition, there were the difficulties of living in a society where one’s Christian faith could bring harassment and persecution. At times, it would seem much easier to abandon it and follow the crowd.

“Blessed” are those who can persevere in the face of such testing. It is the “blessedness” that Jesus spoke about in the Beatitudes. James praises those who come triumphantly through such times of trial and testing. They will receive “the crown of life” that God promises to those who remain faithful to him. The “crown” (stephanos, stefanos - from which the name ‘Stephen’ comes) was the term for the wreath placed on the head of a victorious athlete or military leader. (One often sees pictures of Julius Caesar wearing such a wreath.) In the Second Letter to Timothy, Paul is quoted as being confident of getting such a crown - “I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness” (2 Tim 4:6-7, see also 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 2:10).

However, James reminds us that no one should ever think that these tests or temptations come directly from God. God can never be the source of an urge to do or say what is evil and wrong.

God himself, of course, cannot be tempted. In a God who is infinite Goodness, there is nothing that could entice him as more desirable than what he already is and has. Nor does he tempt anyone in the sense of leading a person to do what is morally evil. Again because God is all Goodness such a situation is impossible. Of course, we may find ourselves in situations where our faith and integrity are challenged. God does not prevent such situations arising. But, if we fail, it is the result of our own choice.

This is the clear message of the creation story in Genesis. The Fall was due solely to the choice made by the Man and his wife. God is all good and the source only of what is good.

All our temptations originate in ourselves, in the various passions that drive us. The passage mentions three stages - desire, sin and death. These we see in the sin of the first woman and her husband. We see the same in David’s infatuation with Bathsheba (cf. Friday of Week 3 in Ordinary Time). This is something we have all experienced in some form.

On the contrary, every good thing we experience comes directly from the “Father of lights”, the Father who presides over the whole universe with its myriads of stars and constellations. And, unlike them, he never suffers change or eclipse. He is above all a creating God.

“He willed to give us birth by the word of truth”, that is, literally “he deliberately teemed us forth by a word of truth”. The ‘word of truth’ is everything God has revealed to the human race; it is the supreme Law. For us now, the word of Truth is the Gospel, the Way that Jesus the Son of God proclaimed.

And we are to be the “first fruits” of his creatures. Just as the first sheaf of the harvest was an indication that the whole harvest would eventually follow, so the early Christians were an indication that a great number of people would eventually be born again. This is our great responsibility towards the world around us.

It is through his Word, the Logos, that God brings forth everything that has been made and we human beings are in a special category. For we are made in his likeness, in our ability to love and to know, in our ability to co-create with him. So today, let us look at the sources of evil which are in us and see where they have been leading us.

At the same time, let us also count our blessings, become aware of the wonderful gifts that God has given and continues to give us every single day. Let us also remember our responsibility to help in the building of the Kingdom, making this world a better place for all.

Mark 8:14-21

Yesterday we saw the blindness of the Pharisees in asking Jesus to give some sign of his authority from God. Today we see the blindness of Jesus’ own disciples. This, of course, is pointing to our blindness in not recognising the clear presence of God in our own lives.

The disciples are travelling across the lake in the boat. They had forgotten to bring food with them and there was only one loaf between them all. As they cross the lake, Jesus is talking to them. “Keep your eyes open; be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.” For the Jews yeast was a corrupting agent because it caused fermentation. That was why at the Pasch they ate unleavened, incorrupt, bread. And Paul tells the Corinthians: “Get rid of all the old yeast, and make yourselves into a completely new batch of bread, unleavened as you are meant to be” (1 Cor 5:7).

Jesus is telling his disciples to avoid two opposing kinds of corruption. That of the Pharisees which is based on narrow-minded and intolerant legalism and that of Herod, which is based on amoral and hedonistic pleasure-seeking.

However, the disciples are not really listening to their Master. They latch on to the word “yeast” and link it with their present obsession - not enough bread. Their lunch is the only thing on their minds. Jesus, of course, knows what is going in their minds.

He scolds them: “You are worried about having no bread? Do you not understand? Have you no perception? Are your minds closed? Have you eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear? Do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves among the 5,000, how many baskets of leftovers did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they answer. “And when I broke the seven loaves for the 4,000, how many baskets of leftovers did you collect?” “Seven.” “And you still do not understand?”

Five loaves for 5,000 with 12 baskets over, seven loaves for 4,000 with seven baskets over, and they, a mere dozen people, are worried about being short of food when Jesus is with them?

Mark tends to be very hard on the disciples. They cannot see, they cannot hear, they fail to understand what is happening before their very eyes. But they are learning gradually, as we shall see. Of course, Mark is firing his shots not at the disciples but at you and me. How much faith have we got in God’s care for us? Can we hear, can we see? Are we also without understanding?

Week 06 | Wednesday

Jas 1:19-27

Today we come to a central point in this letter: the need for our faith to be seen in action. That is the proof that our faith and worship are genuine.

James begins with a number of instructions:

a. “Be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger; for a man’s anger does not fulfil God’s justice.” Advice that is as relevant now as it was when he wrote it. It is so easy to jump to conclusions and over-react. So often we do not really listen and we are too hasty to respond. And, while there is a legitimate anger, our angry responses are seldom made for the good of the other. And our reactive anger certainly does not reflect the Spirit of God working in us.

b. “Strip away all that is filthy, every vicious excess.” That can cover many things, every form of over-indulgence, sexual and otherwise.

c. “Humbly welcome the word that has taken root in you, with its power to save you.” We have constantly to be in a receiving mode for the word of God, which can come to us from so many sources and in so many ways. And this word has truly a saving power; it can genuinely have a transforming effect on us.

d. “Act on this word. If all you do is listen to it, you are deceiving yourselves.” As we have pointed out elsewhere, listening to God’s word embraces a number of elements: 1, to hear the Word; 2, to understand it; 3, to accept and assimilate it; and 4, to act on it. Without the final step, our hearing is incomplete.

James then goes on to give a vivid image. He compares a person who hears God’s word and does nothing about it to a man who looks at himself in the mirror and then goes off forgetting completely about what he saw. On the other hand, the one who “looks into the perfect law of freedom” and then acts on what he sees is not just a hearer but a doer. The Jewish concept of human freedom flowed from obedience to the Law; for Paul, however, Christian freedom flowed from the Christian’s release from obedience to the Law. The Christian who really looks at the law of God sees in it the source of his freedom. God’s law for him is no burden; on the contrary it is a source of liberation. “The Truth will make you free,” said Jesus. It is something that many, including practising Christians, seem unaware of.

“Happy will this man be in whatever he does.” It is a great moment of enlightenment when we realise that what Jesus teaches us in the Gospel is a source of freedom and not a burden and restriction on our freedom, or a sacrifice of freedom.

Finally, he gives an example of persons who truly act on God’s word. For instance, people who have no control over what they say cannot call themselves devout or religious. Their external worship, however pious it looks, is a sham. They are like the man who goes to the temple to offer his gift while a brother has a serious grievance against him.

Real worship, James suggests, consists in taking care of orphans and widows, the most pitied of people in Jesus’ time, and remaining untainted by the world. “World” here is not the world of nature but the world of people in their rebellion against and alienation from God. ”If you do not reach out to these, the very least and the most needy in my Kingdom, you are not doing it to me.” No amount of time in church can alone make up for this.

Mark 8:22-26

We are approaching a high point in Mark’s gospel. And it is preceded by today’s strategically placed story. At first glance it looks like a simple healing story of a blind man but, as in most of Mark’s miracles, there is a deep symbolic meaning inside.

People bring a blind man to Jesus so that Jesus could apply his healing touch. (How much of our touching is healing? Or are we afraid of physical touch?) Jesus takes the man aside away from the crowds. He puts spittle on the man’s eyes and asks, “”Can you see anything?” The man, who is beginning now to see, says he can see people, but they are like trees and walking about. Jesus lays his hands on the man’s eyes again and now he can see clearly. “He could see everything plainly and distinctly.” Jesus tells him to go directly home, not through the village. He wants no misplaced sensationalism about who he is. The truth of that is going to be revealed very soon.

The story is clearly linked with other events that have just been taking place. We have seen the blindness of the Pharisees unable to recognise the power of God in the words and works of Jesus. We can see the blindness of his own disciples when he asked them in the boat: “Can you not see? Can you not hear? Do you not understand?”

This story, coming where it is, is a parable about the gradual opening of the disciples’ eyes as it begins to dawn on them just who Jesus is. We will see in tomorrow’s gospel a giant step in their seeing and understanding while at the same time being aware that they still have a long way to go.

Our understanding of Jesus is also a gradual process and it never ends. Many seem to settle into a complacent level of understanding beyond which they never go. As a result their spiritual growth is blocked and also their ability to have a growing faith enrich their lives.

Week 06 | Thursday

Jas 2:1-9

There is some very straight speaking from James today and there will be few of us who will not feel a twinge of conscience as we read or listen.

He begins by reminding us that our faith in, our commitment to Jesus Christ means that all forms of favouritism or discrimination must be removed from our hearts. God himself shows no favouritism. “He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous… Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:45-48).

He gives a very practical example in the way that the rich and powerful are treated in contrast with the poor and uneducated. The scene is the place where Christians meet. The word used is ‘synagogue’. James is writing to Jewish Christians so it is possible they may even have still been attending Jewish synagogues, or it may be his word for the Christian ‘assembly’ for liturgical worship. The word ‘synagogue’ (synagogue, sunagwgh) literally means a place where people gather together.

Two people walk into the Christian assembly at the same time. One is rich and well-dressed, the other is poor and shabby. The rich person is treated with a great deal of respect and deference while the poor person is ignored or shoved into a corner. A very similar situation is described very critically by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk… Do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?… For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves” (1 Cor 11:20-21,22,29).

Have we not seen this happen umpteen times? Have we not done something like that ourselves? Do we not associate wealth with respectability and poverty with fecklessness and crime? When we act like this, James asks, are we not practising discrimination and setting ourselves up as judges purely on the basis of external appearance?

James then gives three arguments against our bias towards the materially rich. The third reason does not appear in our reading. The three reasons are:

1, the rich persecute the poor - who are specially loved by God;

2, favouritism violates the royal law of love and thus is sin;

3, favouritism will be judged.

1, In God’s eyes are not the poor called “blessed” (happy, fortunate)? They have nothing to give but everything to receive. They have no sense of self-sufficiency which the rich can sometimes boast of, thinking they are independent. “‘Lucky man! You have all the good things you need for many years. Take life easy, eat, drink, and enjoy yourself!’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night you will have to give up your life; then who will get all these things you have kept for yourself?’” (Luke 12:19-20) Yet, it is the poor that we look down on and treat so badly.

But Paul told the Christians of Corinth: “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God” (1 Cor 1:28-29). It is a fact that the Christian faith originated from people who had no power or status in their society.

The poor, as poor, have nothing to be ashamed of; the rich, as rich, have nothing to boast about. The poor may be poor materially but they can be rich in faith. And, of course, in the kind of situation James calls for in this letter, their real needs will be taken care of.

2, “Are not the rich oppressing you?” Are not those very people we treat with such courtesy, the rich and powerful, the ones who really exploit us? How come so many of them become rich in the first place? Often by taking and keeping to themselves what in justice belongs to others. In the Scripture that is the real definition of a rich person - not just one who has a lot of material wealth, but one who holds on to that surplus wealth while surrounded by many who are denied the most basic needs.

“Do they themselves not haul you off to court?” They are the people who can afford the big lawyers to crush their opponents and use every legal technicality to avoid punishment for their own most serious and damaging behaviour?

Is it not the rich “who blaspheme the noble name that was invoked over you”? In the Old Testament the name of Yahweh pronounced over someone dedicated him to the divine protection. In the Gospel, it is the poor, the needy, the unjustly deprived who have God’s name over them. But it is a protection the possessive rich do not recognise, although they are the ones most in a position to give it.

It is for all of us then to observe the “royal law”: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” It is called ‘royal’ because it is the supreme law that is the source of all other laws governing human relationships. It is the summation of all such laws. “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments… and any other commandment are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’. Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). Put very simply: no truly loving act (whatever it is) can ever be sinful because “where there is love, there is God” (cf. 1 John 4).

It is for each one of us to carry out the law of God’s kingdom. That is the law of love and justice for all.

To show favouritism, then, to one person over another is to break the law of love; it is to sin; it is to violate the most fundamental law of God. It is to deny to a brother or sister the love that is their sacred right.

And it applies not only to rich and poor but also to all kinds of groups with whom we may not immediately identify - people of other classes, level of age, education, race, nationality, religion, profession…

Let us take a look at ourselves and see just who are the people we tend to treat differently.

Mark 8:27-33

We now come to a high point in Mark’s gospel which the texts of previous days have been leading up to. Since the beginning of this gospel the question has been continually

asked: “Who is Jesus?” Today we get the answer. The blind and deaf disciples show that they are beginning to see more clearly.

So Jesus himself puts the question that has been underlying all that has gone before: “Who do people say I am?” The disciples give a number of answers reflecting the speculations of the people. These include:

- John the Baptist come to life again

- Elijah, who was expected to return to earth just before the arrival of the Messiah

- One of the other prophets…

Then Jesus asks his disciples what they believe. “Who do you say I am?” Peter speaks up in the name of all: “You are the Christ.”

This is indeed a dramatic moment. Jesus is not just an ordinary rabbi, not just a prophet. He is the long-awaited Christ, the Messiah, the anointed King of Israel. This is a tremendous breakthrough for the disciples. However, they are told to keep this to themselves for the time being. There were many expectations about the Messiah and Jesus did not want to be identified with them.

But it is not the end of the story. There is a sudden and unexpected twist for which they were not at all prepared. Jesus immediately begins to tell them what is going to happen to him in the days ahead: that he will suffer grievously, be rejected by the religious leaders of his own people, be put to death and - perhaps most surprising of all - after three days rise again. And there was no mistaking his meaning for “he said all this quite openly”. ‘Religious leaders’ here refers to the Sanhedrin, the 71-member ruling council of the Jews consisting of elders, the chief priests and the scribes. Under Roman rule, it had authority in religious matters.

For the first time in this gospel Jesus refers to himself as the “Son of Man”. He will do this many more times. The title was first used in the book of Daniel (7:13-14) as a symbol of “the saints of the Most High”, referring to those faithful Israelites who receive the everlasting kingdom from the “Ancient One” (God). In the apocryphal books of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra the title does not refer to a group but to a unique figure of extraordinary spiritual endowments, who will be revealed as the one through whom the everlasting kingdom decreed by God will be established. Of itself, this expression means simply a human being, or, indefinitely, someone, and there are evidences of this use in pre-Christian times. Its use in the New Testament is probably due to Jesus’ speaking of himself in that way, “a human being”, and the later Church’s taking this in the sense of the Jewish apocrypha and applying it to him with that meaning (cf. New American Bible)

It is not difficult to imagine how the disciples must have been profoundly shocked and could not believe their ears at what Jesus was telling them. Peter, their impetuous leader, immediately begins to protest. They have just pronounced Jesus to be the long-awaited leader of the Jewish people and now he says he is going to be rejected and executed by their very own leaders. It made absolutely no sense whatever. Jesus turns round, looks at his disciples and scolds Peter with the terrible words, “Get behind me, Satan! Because the way you think is not God’s way but man’s.”

This is what the gradual opening of the eyes of the blind man in yesterday’s story indicated. They had reached the stage where they had made the exciting discovery that their Master was none other than the long-awaited Messiah. They had answered the first question of Mark’s gospel: Who is Jesus? But they were still immersed in all the traditional expectations that had grown up around the coming of the Messiah, as the victorious and triumphing king who would put all Israel’s enemies to flight.

But they would have to unlearn all this. The rest of Mark will answer the second question: What kind of Messiah is Jesus? or What does it mean for Jesus to be Messiah?

And a further question follows from that. What will all that mean for the disciples - and for us? We will see some of that tomorrow.

Week 06 | Friday

Jas 2:14-24, 26

James comes back to the theme that a true following of Christ must result in actions. It is not that the actions themselves save. Rather, the actions are the proof that there is a faith that is genuine.

At first sight, there seems to be a conflict between the teaching of Paul and that of James. Paul insists that we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ while James is saying very clearly that faith not accompanied by action is of no value.

The Jerusalem Bible comments:

The different points of view of James and Paul are not wholly irreconcilable. Paul is anxious to rule out the view that a human being can earn salvation without having faith in Christ, since such a reliance on self-made sanctity would be contradicted by the radical sinfulness of unredeemed humanity and would make faith in Christ, superfluous. But Paul does not deny that God’s chosen one who has been made holy by grace must show faith by actually loving and in this way obeying the Law, i.e. the Law or commandment of Christ and his Spirit, which is the commandment to love. It is perfectly true, however, that in order to teach the same truth as Paul, James in a different context and under different circumstances explains the case of Abraham in a completely different way from Paul.

In other words, our total faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour is absolutely primary. We cannot save ourselves simply by our own efforts. We don’t ‘earn’ salvation by what we do. Salvation is a totally gratuitous gift of God. Through faith we open ourselves totally and unconditionally to the Way of Jesus and recognise in him our access to the infinite love of God for us. This is where Paul distinguishes the Christian from the Jewish way. The Jews believed that by their observance of the external requirements of the Law, they could be ‘justified’ before God. James is not really contradicting any of this. What he is saying is that a genuine faith and commitment to Christ MUST result in our passing on the love that God gives us to others, and especially to those in any kind of need.

So James begins by asking whether there is any good in professing a faith which does not express itself through our behaviour. Such a faith, he says, has no power to save. It is clearly a ‘phoney’ faith.

He gives a practical example of what he means. If I see a person without food or clothes and just say some comforting words, “Good luck to you! Keep warm and eat well”, but do absolutely nothing to help, what kind of faith is that? We find a similar idea in the First Letter of John: “How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?” (1 John 3:17). There is an indivisible and unbreakable link between faith and love (’agaph, agape). “Faith of itself, if it does not have [loving] works, is quite dead.” A faith that does not flow out into love and compassion for the brother or sister is simply a dead and useless faith. Works of love and compassion, however, are an indication of an underlying faith. In fact, faith and loving works cannot be separated.

It is no argument, notes James, to say “I have faith and you have works” as if there was an option between the two. A caricature of Catholics and Protestants is to say that Catholics depend on works and Protestants on faith. The irony is that many Protestants who proclaim “Faith alone!” often put Catholics to shame in the good works that they do! One thinks of the Salvation Army for instance. Genuine faith will always be accompanied by loving actions but it is our faith in Jesus that really saves. Faith is our being grafted on to the vine that is Jesus and only when we are so grafted are we able to produce fruit. “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5) But, if there is no fruit, we will be pruned and rejected. Am I a living or dead branch on the tree of Christ?

Faith alone can sincerely believe that there is just one God. But even the demons believe in God and live in fear of him.

James then gives the example of Abraham offering his son Isaac. Paul also uses this example but from a different angle. Paul emphasises the extraordinary faith of Abraham in God’s word when he showed he was prepared to sacrifice his only son, even though that son was the only link with God’s promise that Abraham’s descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the seashore. It was a command that, on the face of it, made absolutely no sense. Yet Abram said, ‘Yes’ to God’s command and he was justified by that act of complete trust in God’s word.

James basically agrees with this for he quotes: “Abram believed the Lord, and it was credited to him as righteousness”. The faith of Abraham preceded his act of obedience to the Lord’s command. And that is why he is called “friend of God” (2 Chron 20:7) and father of all believers.

But the point is that Abram’s faith did result in action, in his preparing to carry out what he was told (even though it was countermanded before it could be carried out). Paul, too, qualifies his emphasis on the priority of faith when he says elsewhere, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6). If Abraham had SAID he believed in God but had taken no steps to carry out God’s command, we could have reason to doubt.

So, James concludes, a person is made right with God not just by proclamations of faith but by actions which flow from that faith and are the proof of its genuineness. “Faith without works is as dead as a body without breath.”

This reading can be a wake-up call to many of us Catholics who can so easily confuse our pious exercises (‘good works’) with a true living out of our faith in Christ. It is easy to think we are “good Catholics” because we go frequently to Mass, make novenas, go on pilgrimages, say the rosary and lots of other prayers and engage in many other devotions. These are, of course, good things but they are certainly not the “actions” that James is talking about.

For him faith-inspired actions mean reaching out to brothers and sisters in need, joining in the struggle for justice and such activities, being loving, forgiving, reconciling and peace-making persons.

If we look into ourselves, we may find that, on that basis, our faith still leaves much to be desired.

Mark 8:34

Having warned his disciples of the future that lies ahead for him, Jesus now calls the crowds and his disciples together and lets them know in no uncertain terms what following him entails. To be a follower of Jesus is to be ready to go exactly the way that he went. “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

“Whoever wishes to save his life, will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it.” This is the paradox. Self-preservation and self-centred aggrandisement leads to nothing, only to a kind of death. Surrendering one’s life totally into a commitment to Jesus and to his Way (as expressed in the Gospel) leads to an enrichment which nothing else can supply.

This is a clear challenge that anyone who wants to follow Jesus must be ready both to suffer and give their lives in love for others. Those who make every effort to preserve their lives and hang on to what they have with no regard for transcendent values or the needs of others are destined to lose everything, not least their integrity, dignity and self-respect.

This was very practical teaching for people who were frequently being persecuted for their Christian faith. Those who betrayed that faith to save their lives or their property had lost something more valuable - their integrity, their wholeness, their consistency.

Undoubtedly many could not live with themselves afterwards. There are certain things which are more important than human life or material possessions.

“What gain, then, is it for a man to win the whole world and ruin [the true meaning of] his life? And indeed what can a man offer in exchange for his life?” We have a long list of martyrs (= witnesses) to the faith whose memories we cherish and whose example we respect and admire. We have no list and no desire to remember those who avoided martyrdom and compromised their faith and their values and who may have enjoyed wealth and position as a result. They lived on for a while and then disappeared; the martyrs are still very much alive.

There are overtones here of a Church in persecution. There must have been those who, when their faith was challenged, “were ashamed of Jesus and his words” and denied their faith to save their immediate lives. They will hear the terrible words cited in Matthew’s gospel: “I do not know you.”

The final phrase is ambivalent: “There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power.” That can refer to the establishment of the Christian communities, as witnesses to the Kingdom being established in the world, which will be the result of the great experience at Pentecost. It can also refer, of course, to a belief among many in the early Church that the Second Coming of Jesus, the Parousia, would take place in their lifetime.

Week 06 | Saturday

Jas 3:1-10

James has some astute comments to make about our tongues as an instrument of speech.  Again, few of us will feel exempt from the lash of James’ own tongue in this passage.

He begins by suggesting that few are competent to become teachers of the faith, for the simple reason that such people have to be much more accountable for what they do and say.  Teachers, in particular, because of the influence they have, will always be held more accountable.  They can make or break a person’s character.  Remember Jesus’ castigation of the Pharisees and the Scribes for not practising what they preached.   “They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearances say long prayers.  They will receive the greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47).  Among teachers, of course, we can include all religious leaders - bishops, priests, religious, as well as parents and teachers and any who are responsible for the formation of the young and vulnerable.

In fact, says James, a person who has full control over his tongue can be said to be in control of his whole self.  Since the tongue is so difficult to control, anyone who controls it perfectly gains control of himself in all other areas of life as well.

He compares the tongue to the bit in the horse’s mouth.  It is only a small piece of metal but with it we can control the whole animal.  Huge ships, tossed on stormy seas in driving winds, can be steered in any direction by a relatively small rudder.  The tongue, too, is a very small part of our body but it has influence totally out of proportion to its relevant size.

The tongue can be compared to a tiny spark which can set a whole forest on fire.  It exists in our body as “a world of malice”, the source of all kinds of evils, “defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire”.  Marriages have been broken, murders committed and wars started by what has issued from people’s tongues.

It seems that we can tame even the wildest animals but “no human being can tame the tongue.  It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison”.  It can be a “whole universe of malice”.  It can do an enormous amount of harm and in the process defiles one’s whole self.

“From the very same mouth come blessing and cursing.”  The very same tongue can either sing the praises of God or pile curses on brothers and sisters who are made in the likeness of God - and in the process curse God their Creator.   That is a situation which should not happen, says James.

The reading is very simple in its message and may seem in some ways to exaggerate but, if we are honest, we know that there is an enormous amount for us to reflect on here in our own use of speech.  So much time can be wasted, so much poison can be spread about through our injudicious gossip.  We can literally spend hours doing this.  We can be so totally lacking in love, compassion and sensitivity as we consistently undermine the good names of those around us.

We can offend by telling lies or by suppressing truth that should be revealed.  We can utterly destroy people’s reputations, apart from the harm that our negative attitudes do to ourselves.  Perhaps James is not exaggerating so much after all.

And one wonders what kind of compensation we should or can give to those who have been seriously hurt by our irresponsible words?

At the same time, there is so much good we can do, so much upbuilding of others that can be done by the way we speak, by our being generous in praise and encouraging words.   The gift of speech is exactly that, a wonderful gift which can do so much good.

Mark 9:2-13

The strange event we know as the Transfiguration follows immediately after the confession of Peter about Jesus’ identity as Messiah and the foretelling of his rejection,
sufferings and death at the hands of his own people which came as such a shock to the disciples.

Today’s experience seems to be a kind of glimpse of Jesus as the Son of God to prepare them for when the Passion actually takes place. Only the three closest companions of Jesus – Peter, James and John – are chosen for this experience.

They go up a high mountain, traditionally recognised as Mount Tabor, but it does not really matter. Mountains in Scripture are holy places where God is specially present:
Moses received the Law on a mountain; the new Moses, Jesus, gave his Law in the Sermon on the Mountain, Jesus is often described as going into the mountains to pray.

Suddenly they see Jesus as they have never seen him before – in dazzling glory. Then on either side appear Elijah and Moses talking with Jesus. The meaning is clear. Moses represents the Law and Elijah the tradition of the prophets. Between them they are the summation of all God’s revelations to his people and they are endorsing Jesus as the continuation of that tradition.

Peter, in his usual impetuosity, gets carried away. “It is wonderful for us to be here.” He wants to set up three shrines: one each for Jesus, Moses and Elijah.

Then a cloud covers everything. In scriptural imagery this clearly speaks of the presence of God himself. Compare the cloud that covered Moses on the mountain as he conversed with God. Compare the pillar of cloud that accompanied the Israelites through the desert.

From within the cloud comes a voice, which can only be the voice of God himself: “This is my Son, the Beloved. Listen to him.” This is now the endorsement of the Father himself for Jesus. The words that just previously they found difficult to accept they are
now being told to listen to very carefully. Jesus, as Son, speaks with the voice of God.
We too need to listen to everything that Jesus says both by his words and his actions.

Then everything is suddenly over and they see “only Jesus”. The Jesus of everyday life, looking not very different from anyone else. The way he appears in our life too. But we have to continue listening to him wherever and however we encounter him.

As they come down from the mountain, the disciples are told not to say anything until Jesus is risen from the dead. Jesus does not want any misunderstandings or distortions of what has just happened to be disseminated. The gospel says they observed this instruction even though they were puzzled about what “risen from the dead” might mean.

They also asked about the expected appearance of Elijah before the coming of the Messiah. Jesus the Messiah has come but where was Elijah? Jesus replies that Elijah has come and it is understood Jesus was referring to John the Baptist, who, like Jesus, also suffered.

Week 07 | Monday

Jas 3:13-18

James today urges us to cultivate true wisdom. Wisdom is not a matter of having a great deal of information or of being an expert in the doctrine or the teachings of the Church (or in any other field for that matter). An illiterate Christian may have more real wisdom than a theologian.

Wisdom is primarily a question of insight into the meaning and the value of things. It is a deep understanding of how all things relate to each other. Here it is closely related with behaviour and the way we relate to other people.

So James speaks of a wisdom that is filled with “humility and good sense”. Humility is not a question of making oneself small but of accepting one’s limitations; it is a question of being able to see oneself objectively, recognising one’s strong points but not denying one’s weaknesses. A humble person is one who sees and accepts himself as he is. Wisdom is also a question of “good sense”, of being able to sense the right approach in a given situation. A person who can discern the true and the good in all kinds of situations and respond appropriately.

“Bitter jealousy and selfish ambition” which lead to arrogance and “false claims against the truth” are certainly not the ingredients of wisdom. As James comments, “wisdom” like this does not come from above, from God. It is the wisdom of the arrogant and the proud, of people who put themselves at the centre. It is “earthbound, devilish and cunning”. It is ultimately destructive and divisive.

“Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.” Jealousy comes of resenting the good that is in others. Ambition is a desire to get ahead of others irrespective of the cost to them. It is divisive and destructive. “God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33).

True wisdom, “wisdom from above” is “innocent”, that is, it has a certain guilelessness about it. It has a transparent openness and is entirely free of deception or concealment. It is “peaceable, lenient, docile, rich in sympathy and in the kindly deeds that are its fruits, impartial and sincere”.

It is a combination of truth and love and deep compassion which is clearly seen in the way one acts and relates with others. What is produced is the “harvest of justice”, sown in peace for those whose whole way of life is to bring peace to others. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9) This wisdom is personified in the character of Jesus.

Let us pray for that wisdom today - and to be protected from any kind of deviousness and cunning. May our lives be filled with peace and harmony and spread that peace to all those with whom we come in contact.

Mark 9:14-29

As Jesus comes down the mountain of the Transfiguration with Peter, James and John, they find the rest of the disciples surrounded by a large crowd. They are in a deep argument with some Scribes, the experts on the Jewish law. Jesus wants to know what they are arguing about.

A man comes forward and describes some terrible symptoms his son is experiencing. He had asked Jesus’ disciples to exorcise this demon but they were not able to do so. Reading the passage with contemporary eyes it is possible for us to see in the boy’s symptoms some kind of epilepsy attack. It is understandable that people in those days would see in it some kind of evil possession. A person with epilepsy seems to behave in very bizarre ways and to be in the control of some external power.

“You faithless generation!” Jesus exclaims. He asks that the boy be brought to him. Immediately the boy has another attack, lying writhing on the ground, foaming at the mouth - all typical symptoms of an epileptic attack.

The father says the boy has been like that since birth and then he makes a heart-rending plea, “If you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus’ response is immediate: “Ifyou can! Everything is possible for anyone who has faith.” Jesus does not just help people who ask. They must have a firm trust and confidence in God. We were told earlier that in Nazareth Jesus was able to do very little healing because the people there had no faith or trust in him.

The man comes back with a magnificent response, “I do have faith. Help the little faith I have!” That is the paradox of faith. It is something that we must have in order to come under the power of God and yet it is also something he has to give us first.

This was enough for Jesus. He immediately drove out the force that was afflicting the boy. It involved one more last attack, leaving him lying on the ground like a corpse so that the onlookers thought he was dead. Epileptics can look like that at the end of an attack.

Then Jesus took the boy by the hand and lifted him up. “And he was able to stand.” As often happens in the Gospel, healing and a restoration to wholeness means standing up, sharing in the resurrection, the new life, of Jesus.

Afterwards, when Jesus’ disciples were alone with him, they asked why they could not heal the boy. Jesus tells them that this kind of the problem “can only be driven out by prayer”. Did that mean that they had been trying to heal the boy by their own efforts? Were they beginning to think that the power that had been given them was their own? That they had failed to realise they were just channels of God’s healing power? Jesus spent long hours in prayer before and after his teaching and healing works. We cannot expect to do otherwise.

Week 07 | Tuesday

Jas 4:1-10

Strong words today from James. He speaks about the origins of the conflicts and disputes that can tear communities apart. He attributes it to “inner cravings” (hedonon, ‘hdonwn), uncontrolled desires to have our pleasures fulfilled at any cost. Our word ‘hedonism’ comes from the term used in the Greek original. Traditional spirituality often used the word ‘passions’.

These desires can even drive us to murderous hatred (if not to murder itself). Rampant crime and violence are among the most evident fruits of our materially affluent societies. People are driven by never-satisfied desires to have more and more and to have it NOW.

“You crave things you don’t have, you are envious and jealous of things you cannot have, you squabble and fight” (literally, ‘fight and go to war’). ‘War’ here is not the internal spiritual struggle of a Christian, and it seems to be more than just heated arguments between Christians but resorting to physical violence. Sadly, a perfect description of our affluent societies.

“You do not possess because you do not ask.” And who should we be asking? In the context of the letter it is pretty clear - God. And when we do ask, we do not receive because we ask wrongly. We ask simply to satisfy our own personal satisfactions and the objects of our passions. What we ask has very little relevance to either our own real well-being or that of others.

What should we be asking for? If our requests are directed honestly to God and his will for us, we will probably find that we are modifying our lists somewhat. God is hardly interested in our desire to have a BMW or that holiday on the French Riviera.

James is saying very clearly that the problem is not that God does not listen to our prayers but that we are approaching him in a completely wrong frame of mind. In rather blunt language he accuses his hearers of being “unfaithful” or “adulterous”.

“Adulterers! [literally, ‘adulteresses’], do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God?” The imagery is of Israel as the unfaithful wife of Yahweh, a traditional image in the Old Testament (see Hosea 1:2ff). Jesus, too, speaks to the Pharisees as a “sinful and adulterous generation” (e.g. Matt 12:39). ‘World’ here points to those elements whose behaviour is totally opposed to God’s way. Love of God and love of the world in this sense are incompatible. “You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matt 6:24). James’ hearers are unfaithful in choosing the “world” as their friend, in the sense of an environment which is in conflict with all that God stands for.

Whatever we ask of God, it should not be simply for passing satisfactions. It should be something that is directed to the purpose and meaning of our own lives and those of others. Even when we ask for healing from sickness, what will we do with our health when it comes back?

“The spirit he has implanted in us tends towards jealousy”, says James, quoting a scripture text that is otherwise lost to us. Yes, our God is a “jealous” God in the sense that he calls for the total dedication of ourselves to him. It has to be all or nothing. “None of you can be my disciples unless he lets go of everything he has” (Luke 14:33). He is jealous for all of our love, not just some of it. And we know that when we do give our all, we also receive abundantly. It is because God has shared his Spirit with us, that we want what God wants and that God answers our prayers.

In fact, there are two ways of reading the quotation, depending on whether ‘spirit’ refers to our own ‘spirit’ or the ‘Spirit’ of God. Regarding the two alternative translations, the meaning of the first is that God jealously longs for our faithfulness and our love (see 4:4). In this case the Scripture referred to may be to a passage in Exodus: where we read: “For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:5-6). ‘Jealousy’ here is not a form of envy but rather God’s demanding total allegiance, such as a wife or husband must have for each other.

The second reading capitalises “Spirit” and makes Him the subject. It is the Holy Spirit who longs jealously for our full devotion. If this is the correct translation, it is the only clear reference to the Holy Spirit in the letter.

Finally in this context, James concludes with 10 short commandments of his own, each of which is so stated in Greek that it calls for immediate action in rooting out the sinful attitude of pride which has been the subject of his warnings:

1. Submit to God.

2. Resist the devil and he will take flight (advice also found in Ephesians 6:11-18; 1 Pet 5:8-9).

3. Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you.

4. Cleanse your hands, you sinners (as the Old Testament priests had to wash their hands and feet when they approached God in the tent of meeting as a symbol of spiritual cleansing.) Ps 24:4 has the imagery of “clean hands and a pure heart”.

5. Purify your hearts, you backsliders.

6. Begin to lament, to mourn and to weep - as repentance for our many sins.

7. Let your laughter be turned into mourning (that is, repent for your wrongdoing)…

8. …and your joy into sorrow, for our many transgressions (our sins are not a matter for joy).

9. Be humbled in the sight of the Lord…

10: Humble yourselves… and he will exalt you (echoing what Jesus said, Matt 23:12).

If we are to avoid divisions and the violence that can ensue, we need that wisdom James spoke of in yesterday’s reading.

Mark 9:30-37

Jesus was now spending more time with his disciples and teaching them. He was teaching them things that the crowds were not yet ready to hear. As we will see, his disciples were not too ready either.

Today we have the second of three predictions of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection which he communicates to his disciples. On each occasion, the pattern is exactly the same:

a prediction of what is going to happen to Jesus

total lack of comprehension of the meaning of what Jesus is saying on the part of the disciples

a teaching of Jesus arising out of their lack of understanding.

The prediction is stated simply:

Jesus will be “handed over into the hands of others”. This is the standard term used many times. John the Baptist is handed over; Jesus is handed over; the disciples later on will be handed over; and, in the Eucharist, the Body of Jesus is handed over for our sakes (”This is my Body, which will be handed over [tradetur] for you”).

he will be put to death

three days later he will rise again.

They arrive in Capernaum and, in the house, Jesus asks them a question. (Once again we have a reference to the ‘house’ with overtones of the church, the place where God’s people gather, as they do here to listen to the Word of God.) Jesus asks his disciples what seems an innocuous question: “What were you arguing about on the road?”

Here we have another important word of Mark’s: “road” (Greek,hodos, ‘odos). In the context of the Gospel it has theological overtones. Jesus is the Way or the Road and Christians are those who walk on this Way or Road. The disciples arguing then has implications about Christians arguing among themselves as they follow Christ ‘on the road’.

Jesus’ question is met with an embarrassed silence because they had been arguing among themselves which of them was the greatest. The minute the question was asked they knew they were in the wrong. Why were they arguing about this? I once heard it suggested that, as Jesus had now for the second time announced his coming death, they were beginning to accept the possibility of it really happening. They began to wonder what would happen to them as a group without Jesus. Who would be in charge? Which of them had the best qualifications? Hence their argument. If that was the case, then Jesus’ question was even more embarrassing. They could hardly say, “Well, we were wondering which one of us would take over when you are no longer with us.”

Jesus, of course, knew exactly what was going on in their minds so he gave them some guidelines if they wanted to be truly his followers. “If anyone wants to be first, he must make himself last of all and servant of all.” This is quite a hard saying and most of us find it difficult to put fully into practice. It is, of course, totally in opposition to what goes on in the secular world where “success” means being on top, being in charge, being in control, calling the shots.

Yet, who are really the greatest people in our society? Is it not those, especially those who are especially talented intellectually or in other ways, who use their talents totally for the well-being of others to the point of even sacrificing their lives?

Apart from the obvious example of Jesus himself, we have many of the great saints. In our own times we have marvellous people like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Oscar Romero, Jean Vanier, Mother Teresa. It is a long list but they all have one thing in common: they put themselves totally at the service of their brothers and sisters. Success, promotion, status, material wealth, executive power meant nothing to these people. They served and in serving was their power, a power which inspires in a way that no mere politician or business tycoon or dictator could ever do.

To serve is not to be submissive or weak; it is not putting oneself on a lower level than those being served. It is simply to be totally committed to the good of others and to find one’s own well-being in being so committed.

Jesus then takes a little child, as a symbol of all those who are vulnerable, weak and exploitable. Children are used by Jesus as symbols of the anawim, the lowly and weak in our society. They are the ones who are most of all to be served and protected and nurtured. In so doing one is recognising the presence of Jesus and the presence of God in them.

As Christians, we have much to be proud of in our record of service to our brothers and sisters, especially those who are weak and vulnerable. But we also have to confess that within our Church and in our dealings with the “world” we have had our fair share of hungering for power, status and position. And we have so often argued bitterly with each other “on the Road”, about just such things.

Week 07 | Wednesday

Jas 4:13-17

‘Man proposes but God disposes.’ Linked with yesterday’s warnings about what can happen to us when we are driven by hedonism and greed is another about our combined arrogance, short-sightedness and presumption about the future.

The passage speaks of the great uncertainties of life, its complete dependence on God, and the necessity of submitting totally to God’s will. All help one know and do what is right. To disregard this is to live in pride and arrogance and failure to do what is right is a sin.

James speaks to those who sit down to make great plans of how they are going to make a killing in business and walk off with large profits. Whole lives can be built on such dreams. But he pulls us up short. “You have no idea what kind of life will be yours tomorrow” (let alone next month or next year).

He reminds us of the fragility of life. “You are a vapour that appears briefly and vanishes.” We see it happen every day - young lives, full of promise, wiped out in seconds.

Concentrating our energies on a future built on the acquisition of wealth, fame and success is a total waste of time. One way or the other, it all ends in a puff of smoke, a collection of bones in a cemetery. Princess Diana seemed to have everything and it was gone in minutes. And the same for many others. Jesus has a striking parable about that (Luke 12:13-21).

What James suggests instead of arrogant ambition is that we say, “If the Lord wills it, we shall live to do this or that.” We are totally in his hands and we do not know what the next hour or the next minute will bring, let alone the next day or the next year.

The truly wise person is the one who concentrates on the here and now, who finds God in the present moment and responds to him there. Our future is built on what we do and are right now. And God is to be sought never in the past or the future but only in the present. And God’s will is to be found in the realities - not the daydreams - of our daily lives.

This is not to exclude all forms of planning in our lives. Not to plan in certain areas would be quite irresponsible. But all our planning must be in conformity with the Christian vision of life and totally contingent on developments beyond our control.

We may plan for the future but, in seeking and finding God, we come back to the here and now.

Mark 9:38-40

There is another lesson for all of us in today’s brief passage. The disciples complain to Jesus because they saw someone casting out devils in Jesus’ name. They tried to stop him “because he was not one of us”. Jesus tells them very clearly that they should not try to stop such a person. “No one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us.”

This is a principle we need to take seriously to heart. There can be a strong temptation among us to a kind of exclusivity. Many Christian groups (both Catholic and people from other denominations) can fall into this trap. As Paul tells us in one of his letters, the word of God is not bound. God can do his work through all kinds of people - Christians and people of other religions and of no religion. He may even work at times through people who are ostensibly anti-religious. Far from being resentful of others doing work which we feel belongs only to Christians, we should be overjoyed. This is a clear sign of the Kingdom at work. Wherever there is love, wherever there is service, there is God.

Membership of our group is not the test. The test is whether what others do fits in with our goals of truth, love, justice, compassion, freedom, peace, non-violence and so on. Our God is to be found in all these things. The Church is a way to a further goal; it is not itself the end. It is called to be a sign of the Kingdom but is not the totality of the Kingdom. The goal is the Kingdom and the Church is working - and not exclusively - for the realisation of the Kingdom.

Week 07 | Thursday

Jas 5:1-6

James continues his attack on the greedy and the arrogant. This time it is a warning against those who are already rich. Their very wealth will turn against them in condemnation. Those being attacked are not necessarily Christians, as there were not many rich among them in the early church. James warns these people to repent and weep for their coming misery. The passage in general is similar to Old Testament declarations of judgement against unbelieving nations in books which are for the most part addressed to God’s people.

The wealth of the rich, like their clothes, will rot. Their beautiful clothes (an ancient symbol of wealth) will become moth-eaten and even their gold and silver corrode. And that corrosion will be a testimony against them. Wealth is not meant for storing but for sharing with the needy. “I was in need but - with all your wealth - you did nothing to help me.” If material wealth is all they have to show for their lives, they are in trouble.

Rather sarcastically James tells the rich, “You have stored up treasure for the last days.” On the judgement day their selfish misuse of the goods that came their way will testify against them. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had said, “Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matt 6:20)

But the real sin of the rich is not just that they store wealth for themselves but that they have become wealthy at the expense of others who were deprived of their most basic needs. They underpaid the workers who produced the goods which made their masters so wealthy.

Karl Marx cried out against this in the last century as the Industrial Revolution got under way. But the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments) had spoken of this long before.

“You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you fattened yourselves for the day of slaughter,” says James in mockery. The wicked rich are like cattle that continue to fatten themselves on the very day they are to be slaughtered, totally unaware of coming destruction. Again, Jesus has spoken of this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the beggar at the foot of his groaning table. “I did nothing!” the rich man might have cried in protest at this punishment. To which the answer would be: “Exactly!”

To be rich in the Bible usually means having great possessions while those around are in great need. Such wealth can never be justified. It is a gross injustice and cries out to God for redress.

In our world today, individuals, societies and even whole nations enjoy obscene levels of wealth and affluence when hundreds of millions live without the basics of food, water, clothing, shelter and the simplest of medical care.

“You condemned, even killed, the just man,” says James. “He does not resist you.” The author does not have in mind any specific crime in his readers’ communities but rather echoes the Old Testament theme of the harsh oppression of the righteous poor. The same is so true today. While the rich go to their playgrounds, so many of the world’s poor scramble for a living with not a word of protest.

It might be worth our while to ask where we fit into all of this and whether our consciences are clear with the way in which we acquire and use the goods of this world that come under our control.

Mark 9:41-50

Today the Gospel speaks of scandals. It is a much used word in our newspapers today and not always with the same meaning that we find in the Gospel. In the media it tends to refer to behaviour which we do not expect from certain classes of people. We read about it and we say, “How terrible! How wicked!” In the Gospel, however, scandals are stumbling blocks which impede our journey along Christ’s Way. If a president dilly-dallies with a young lady in his office that is scandalous in the media sense but it is not likely to affect the living out of my Christian faith.

The Way of Christ is expressed in love and compassion and, wherever that happens, the action is noted and rewarded. So anyone who gives a disciple even a drink of water, precisely because that person is known to be a follower of Christ, will not go unrewarded. That “anyone” is to be taken with full literalness. It could be a person of a completely different religion or of none. And one would hope that we would do exactly the same in return.

On the other hand, anyone who corrupts the beliefs of a simple believer is only fit for a fate worse than death. And that applies most of all to fellow believers who, by their actions, can be an obstacle to a person following Christ or coming to know Christ.

But, even within ourselves, there can be things in our lives which can block our living out of the Gospel message. A wandering hand may steal, may hurt, may sexually abuse; it would be better to be without a hand than to allow it to do such things. A wandering foot may bring us to places where we are corrupted or cause corruption to others. It would be better to be crippled than to be involved in such things. A wandering eye can result in our treating other people, however beautiful and attractive, as mere objects of desire and may lead to worse things. We can read books which may lead us to thoughts and actions harmful both to ourselves and others. There are many possibilities. Blindness would be a lesser evil.

Obviously, Jesus is not urging us to carry out such amputations literally. His point is to warn us of the many things which can be stumbling blocks in our Christian lives. Perhaps we could reflect a little today and try to enumerate the things that get between us and our following of Jesus.

“Everyone will be salted with fire.” To be salted is to be purified and kept from corruption. This can refer either to penalties by which a sinner is punished and at the same time preserved or to the purifying trials through which we are made more faithful followers. This is the kind of ‘amputation’ that can apply to those who have caused scandal.

This purification can happen through the trials which the Christian is likely to face in the faithful living out of the Gospel. But if the salt itself loses its taste, what can be used to give taste back to it? “Keep salt in your hearts and you will be at peace with one another.” Salt here seems to be the inner essence of the message of Jesus. That is certainly the key to peace in our own hearts and in our relationships with those around us. And if that salt is within us we are not likely to be a stumbling block to others looking for Christ and his Way.

Week 07 | Friday

Jas 5:9-12

As we come towards the end of the letter, James now has some more encouraging words for his readers.

First, he tells them they should stop grumbling against each other and show more tolerance and patience. The community should not be divided. It is a sign of a lack of love among them. And, as we were warned yesterday, the time of reckoning may be closer than we think. “The judge stands at the gate”, that is, Jesus who will come to take us to himself. The New Testament insistence on imminence arises from the teaching that the “last days” began with the Incarnation and the appearance of Jesus among us. We have been living in the “last days” ever since.

The next great event in redemptive history is Christ’s second coming. The New Testament does not say when it will take place, but its certainty is never questioned and believers are consistently admonished to watch for it. It is in this sense that James speaks of Christ’s return as “imminent”. And, of course, the exact time we do not know either and it will be different for each one. And that is precisely why we need to be ready at all times.

Instead of grumbling against the hardships they have to undergo, James suggests they might take as models some of the prophets of the Old Testament, who often suffered many trials in their work for God. Or they might imitate the quiet perseverance of Job, who never once uttered a word of complaint as he saw his family and possessions disappear before his eyes. “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord!” (Incidentally, this is the only place in the New Testament where Job is mentioned although Job 5:13 is quoted in 1 Cor 3:19.)

Lastly, as Jesus did in another context, he cautions them against indiscriminate swearing. First, because it can involve disrespect to God (especially if what is being sworn about is not true). “By heaven or by earth” were substitutes for the original form of an oath, to circumvent its binding force and to avoid pronouncing the holy name of God. James’ words are very close to Christ’s in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:33-37). James is not condemning the taking of solemn oaths, such as God’s before Abraham (Heb 6:13) or Jesus’ before Caiaphas (Mt 26:63-64) or Paul’s (Rom 1:9; 9:1) or a man’s before the Lord (Exod 22:11). Rather, he is condemning the flippant use of God’s name or a sacred object to guarantee the truth of what is spoken.

On the contrary, he tells the community, “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No’.” Apart from leading to disrespectful or trivial use of God’s name, Christians should be known for their integrity and transparency. They are people of their word. So it should not be necessary to convince others of the truth of what they are saying by resorting to swearing oaths.

It is a quality every one of us should be known for in our relations with those around us.

Mark 10:1-12

Jesus is approached by some Pharisees and they ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. We are told they asked him this question in order to put him to the test. It is another example of their efforts to find Jesus on the wrong side of the Mosaic law.

As frequently happens, Jesus answers with another question: “What did Moses command you?” They reply that Moses allowed a man to make out a writ of dismissal and so divorce his wife. They are quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy which says:

Supposing a man has taken a wife and consummated the marriage; but she has not pleased him and he has found some impropriety of which to accuse her; so he has made out a writ of divorce for her and handed it to her and then dismissed her from his house; she leaves his home and goes away to become the wife of another man. If this other man takes a dislike to her and makes out a writ of divorce for her and hands it to her and dismisses her from his house (or if this other man who took her as his wife happens to die), her first husband, who has repudiated her, may not take her back as his wife now that she has been defiled in this way” (Deut 24:1-4).

Jesus clearly is not happy with this teaching and says Moses allowed divorce to accommodate the moral weakness of the people (that is, primarily the men!). He challenges this stand with words from the creation story in Genesis: “God made them male and female… This is why a man must leave father and mother and the two become one body” (Gen 1:27; 2:24). After marriage, then, he says that there are not two separate people but one body. And from that Jesus concludes: “What God has united, humans must not divide.”

When they were back in the ‘house’ (that house again, the place where Jesus’ disciples are gathered about him - the church), Jesus’ disciples expressed their misgivings about what they had just heard. But Jesus went even further: a man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery and a woman who divorces her husband and marries another is also guilty of adultery. He does not recognise divorce. One gets the impression that this teaching of Jesus came as something of a shock to them.

In a sound and enduring marriage the words of Jesus are realised. One meets people who have been married for decades and are as deeply in love with each other, in fact more so, than on the day of their wedding. One has only to see bereaved spouses to realise the terrible void that is left when a partner of many years dies. They feel as if a part of themselves had been torn from them. It can take years for life to come back to some kind of normalcy.

However, in our own day divorce has become a very common phenomenon. In some societies, the divorce rate is almost half of all marriages and in most societies all over the world it is increasing. Marriages between Catholics are also seriously affected. Obviously it is a very complex question and cannot be dealt with here.

Perhaps two comments could be made:

Jesus is attacking a situation where men, when they got tired of their spouse and found someone more interesting, simply wrote a piece of paper and unilaterally dumped the first wife, leaving her high and dry. Jesus rightly deplores such a situation. His final remark indicates something new for his time (and often not yet accepted in our own): equal rights and equal responsibilities for both partners. Women are not commodities to be picked up and dropped off at will.

Divorce as we experience it in our society today often involves a genuine breakdown in the marriage relationship which neither partner wishes and which is a cause of deep pain and suffering to both sides. It may be due to some element of immaturity at the time of marriage or the partners growing apart as they develop as persons. Whatever the reason, this situation is quite different from the one Jesus is speaking of. One feels that that Jesus would be most sympathetic to the painful breakdowns of marriage which happen today and, as Christians, we too should try to empathise with people in such a situation.

Most people enter into marriage with good will and with the intention of having an enduring, lifelong relationship. It is a hope sometimes not realised. At the same time, we also have in our society today a pluralistic approach to the concept of marriage from merely seeing it as two people living together “as long as it feels good” to those who believe in marriage as a permanent relationship “in good times and bad”. And everything in between.

We need to remember that the Church accepts that marriages can break down and that for various reasons the couple may need to have their separation made legal by a divorce settlement in court. What the Church forbids is remarriage. However, many Catholics do remarry in a civil ceremony and we need to deal with such people with great sympathy and understanding if they express a sincere desire to remain active members of the Christian community.

The ideal that Jesus proposes remains but a changing society may need a different approach to marriage where the emphasis is more on the relationship and less on the legal contract. A truly pastoral Church will need to help people live the Gospel in such a changing sociological situation. As always, the solution will lie in answering the question: “In this situation, what is the loving thing to do as far as all are concerned?”

Week 07 | Saturday

Jas 5:13-20

Our final reading from the end of James’ Letter. It contains practical advice on prayer.

First, our prayer may be to ask God to remove the hardship or perhaps for the strength to go through it. The negative experiences of our life are not necessarily to be taken as signs of displeasure on God’s part. On the contrary, they can often be a grace. In dealing with them, we grow in inner strength. A life without challenges is no life.

However, there can also be an inner restlessness or unease which may point to our life being in conflict with God’s will for us. This may call for some discernment until peace returns. But we need to remember that inner peace and external difficulties are not necessarily incompatible. Quite often the contrary may be the case.

Secondly, those who are “in good spirits” should also pray in praise and thanksgiving. This is worth saying because very often when things are going well, God can be the very last person we think of. But, as soon as we face trouble, we immediately think of doing a novena. Every day and frequently during the day we should count our blessings and thank and praise God from the bottom of our hearts.

Thirdly, James suggests what should be done when a community member falls ill. The elders of the community should be called in to pray over the sick person. In the early Church the elders or ‘presbyters’ (presbuteroi, presbyteroi) exercised leadership in the community; they also taught and preached.  They were the predecessors of our ‘priests’ who now have this leadership role. But there were as yet no priests, as we understand the term now, in the early church. Or rather, there was only one High Priest, Jesus Christ (see the Letter to the Hebrews).

The presbyter would also anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord. Oil was one of the best-known ancient medicines (referred to by Philo, Pliny and the physician Galen). In Jesus’ parable, the Good Samaritan pours oil on the wounds of the man lying on the road (Luke 10:34). Some believe that James may be using the term medicinally in this passage. Others, however, regard its use here as an aid to faith, an outward sign of the healing to be brought by God in response to “prayer offered in faith”, mentioned in the next verse.

“This prayer uttered in faith will reclaim the one who is ill, and the Lord will restore him to health.”

Furthermore, the healing is total, both physical and spiritual: “If the sick person has committed any sins, they will be forgiven.” There is, of course, a close relationship between physical, emotional, mental and spiritual healing - a restoration to wholeness and an end to dis-ease.

This text provides the New Testament basis for our Sacrament of the Sick in which the Christian community gathers in the presence of the sick person who is prayed over, anointed and reconciled with God and the community. The result is often palpably a genuine healing of the person, in the sense of bringing great peace, even when death inevitably results.

The past custom of “calling for the priest” when the sick person is in extremis and even unconscious is no longer the mind of the Church. The celebration of the Sacrament should be suggested as soon as a person is known to be in a life-threatening illness and still fully conscious. It was always intended to be seen as a sacrament of healing and not a sentence of death. It can be given in any situation where there is danger of death, for example, before a major operation in hospital or with elderly people, who may seem otherwise be in good health. It is also desirable to have as many present as possible as the purpose of the sacrament is to show the solidarity and support of the community for the sick or elderly person.

James further encourages all Christians to confess their sins to each other and pray for each other for their spiritual healing. Such mutual openness in a community can only have beneficial results for healing any divisions which may occur. At this stage in the church’s life, we have not yet arrived at what we now call the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But what is described here is something to be encouraged. Our present practice of the Sacrament, ‘private Confession’, can be very individualistic and legalistic. With the introduction of Penitential Services, as well as the promotion of prayer and Bible sharing groups, we are moving in this direction again.

As an example of the power of prayer, James gives the example of the prophet Elijah, “a man just like us”, who persevered in prayers which were heard. He first prayed for a drought (as a punishment) and later prayed for the rains to return. Both prayers were answered (cf. 1 Kings 17:1 and 18:41-46).

In his last words, James commends the person who brings back a member of the community who has wandered away. The wanderer may be either a professing Christian, whose faith is not genuine (cf. Heb 6:4-8; 2 Pet 2:20-21), or a sinning Christian, who needs to be restored. Such a person who is brought back from his wandering will be saved from death and his sins will be forgiven.

In our days, this is surely something that many of us could try to do. Few of us can be unaware of such lost sheep, including members of our own family, friends or colleagues at work.

In bringing them back, however, we may have to be careful to steer them in a direction where they will find a church community answering to their real needs. It is a beautiful thing to bring a person back to the active practice of their Christian faith. But one has to admit, especially where the young are concerned, that quite a few leave because their church has simply not been providing them with a stimulating and challenging environment for the living of a Christian life.

Mark 10:13-16

People were bringing young children for Jesus to touch and bless them. (How sad that touching children has become such an object of suspicion in our day. Yet, affectionate affirming touching, properly done, is something that children have a great need of - and not only from their parents. Jesus had no such hang-ups.)

His disciples felt that Jesus, who may have been in the process of giving teaching, was being bothered by these mothers and tried to drive them away. More than once we have seen the officiousness of the disciples who were taking to themselves an authority that not been given them. They still had to learn the lesson that authority serves rather than controls and manipulates. It is a lesson that those in authority in our Church today need also to remember. And it reflects to some extent the low place that children had in adult society, to be neither seen nor heard.

Mark, who likes to record the feelings of Jesus, says that he was quite indignant at his disciples’ behaviour. “Let the little children come to me… for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.” ‘Children’ here can be taken here in a wider sense to include all those who approach Jesus with a completely open, unprejudiced mind. And also those who have a low status in our society. Such people are often more ready to hear the message of the Kingdom and to take an active part in it.

So Jesus says that only those with the openness and simplicity of a child can enter the Kingdom. These words were, no doubt, addressed to all-knowing Scribes and Pharisees and their like and also to the disciples.

Jesus then took the children, put his arms around them, laid his hands on them and blessed them. Jesus knew the importance of physical touch in communicating with people, in expressing encouragement, affirmation and bringing healing.

The passage can be linked, in a way, with that on scandal earlier on. The disciples, perhaps not deliberately, were blocking access to Jesus by those who were most open to his teaching. As people who are responsible for children, either as parents or teachers or whatever, we need to be aware of how by word or action we can block our children being exposed to the Jesus’ message of Truth and Love. But we can also be a block to other people who can be influenced and turned away from the Way of Christ by our unchristian way of behaving.

Week 08 | Monday

1 Pet 1:3-9

Today we begin readings from the First Letter of Peter.

“This letter was most likely written… about 64 AD and sets forth the nature of the Christian life begun in baptism as an experience of regeneration. By their acceptance of Christianity, the Christian communities of Asia Minor had become separated from their pagan countrymen, who were abusing and persecuting them. The apostle instructs his readers that Christianity is the true religion in spite of their trials and sufferings and exhorts them to lead good Christian lives.” (St Joseph‘s Weekday Missal, vol. 1)

The first three verses of the chapter are not included in the reading but in them the writer tells us to whom the letter is being addressed. They include five Roman provinces in Asia Minor and cover most of what is modern Turkey – Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

The letter begins in the usual way with a kind of prayer which is full of hope. In fact, an aura of hope suffuses this whole letter. In spite of the frequent suffering and persecution mentioned in the letter, hope is such a key thought in it (the word itself is used here and in vv.13,21; 3:5,15) that it may be called a letter of hope in the midst of suffering. Christian hope is not just wishful thinking; it is an utter conviction of what is going to be realised. Here there is a guarantee of an “imperishable inheritance” to which all can look forward to with faith and confidence. The basis of that hope is the resurrection of Jesus, who passed through such terrible suffering and death to life. Our faith tells us that we can go the same way with him.

This hope leads to the enjoyment of an inheritance, an inheritance that is eternal, one that is being kept in store for us by God. And we are being made safe, first, by the power of God and, second, by our faith, our total trust and commitment to God. And this guarantees our salvation, which can be seen in three phases: 1, the salvation that comes when we first believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour; 2, the continuing process of salvation as we grow in holiness and wholeness; and 3, when we are united face to face with our God and Lord in glory.

In spite of the many trials and tribulations that the Christians are passing through, the writer assures them that “there is cause for rejoicing”. Because such trials test their faith like gold being purified in fire and will make them even more ready to welcome Christ when he comes. As precious metals are purified by fire, so our faith is strengthened by the trials we experience in our living it out. Experience has shown again and again that persecution has been a strong reinforcer of faith in Christians. Jesus foretold that his followers would constantly face resistance, contempt and persecution. It is not something to be deliberately sought or provoked but at the same time it is one of the signs of our commitment to the Kingdom and the Way of the Gospel. The true Christian will always be seen as a ‘sign of contradiction’ and hence a challenge to conventional wisdom and political correctness.

Peter, who himself had a personal knowledge of Jesus, is presented here as praising the readers of the letter, who, “although you have never seen him, you love him, and without seeing him, you now believe in him”. It reminds one of the words of Jesus to Thomas after the resurrection: “Blessed are those who have not seen but have believed” (John 20:29). Through our faith, we are in direct contact with Jesus. The true believer makes contact with Jesus in every person and every experience.

So, they have reason to “rejoice with inexpressible joy” because they are achieving the goal of faith – and indeed the goal of life – their salvation. “Salvation” means much more than “going to heaven” after we die. It implies a restoration of our fragile and weak lives to complete wholeness and in being totally reunited in joy and peace with him from whom we came – God our Creator. And it begins in this life on earth.

Joy and consolation should be the over-riding experience of the committed follower of Jesus. This joy and consolation is not taken away by our experience of hardships, testings and disappointments in our lives. Quite the contrary.

If that joy is not the deeper part of our Christian experience, then we need to look further for the cause.

Mark 10:17-27

Today we have the story of a rich man, that is, a man who believed he was rich or who believed that in his material wealth was his happiness. He was a well-meaning man. “Good Teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?” “You know the commandments,” says Jesus and then proceeds to list only those commandments which involve our relations with others, omitting those relating directly to God:

not killing; not committing adultery; not stealing; not bearing false witness; not defrauding; respecting parents.

“I have kept all these things since I was young,” says the man. He was indeed a good man insofar as he did respect his parents and he did not do any of the sinful things mentioned.Jesus looked at the man with a real love. This is not a love of affection or attraction. It is the love of agape, a love which desires the best possible thing for the other. This man was good but Jesus wanted him to be even better. So he said to him: “But there is one more thing: go and sell all you have and give to the poor. After that come and follow me.”

On hearing this, the man’s face clouded over. He walked slowly away full of sadness because he was very rich. Jesus had asked him for the one thing he could not give up.

Had asked for the one thing which showed he was blessed by God. He had not expected this.After he had gone Jesus looked at his disciples and said: “”How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” Now it was his disciples’ turn to be alarmed and shocked.

Their whole tradition believed that wealth was a clear sign of God’s blessings; poverty was a curse from God.

Jesus removes any misunderstanding on their part: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.” In other words, quite impossible. This was really too much for them. “In that case,” they asked each other, “who can be saved?” If those who have done well in this life cannot be saved what hope can there be for the losers? It would take them time to learn the truth of Jesus’ words. And it is a lesson that many of us Christians still have to learn.

Why is it so difficult for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God? The answer depends on what meaning we give to ‘rich’ and to ‘Kingdom of God’.A person at a lower middle class level in Europe or the United States may be extremely wealthy with the same resources if living in some African or Asian countries. Similarly a ‘rich’ peasant in a remote village may live a life that is primitive compared to a family on welfare in Europe.When Jesus uses the word ‘rich’ he means a person who has more, a lot more, than those around him while many of those around him do not have enough for their basic needs. For a person to cling to their material goods in such a situation, to enjoy a relatively luxurious standard of living while those around are deficient in food and housing is in contradiction to everything that Jesus and the Kingdom stand for.

The Kingdom of God here is not referring to a future life in ‘heaven’. Jesus is not saying that a rich person cannot go to heaven. He is concerned with how the rich person is living now. The Kingdom is a situation, a set of relationships where truth and integrity, love and compassion and justice and the sharing of goods prevail.The man in the story said that he kept the commandments. One should notice that, except for one, all are expressed negatively. The man could observe several of them by doing nothing! Jesus was asking him to do something very positive, namely, to share his prosperity with his brothers and sisters in need. That he was not prepared to do. As such, he was not ready for the kingdom. He could not be a follower of Jesus. Nor can anyone else who is in a similar situation.

We might also add that the teaching applies not only to individuals but to communities and even nations. There are countries in the world today enjoying very high levels of prosperity with all kinds of consumer luxuries available while a very large proportion of the rest of the world lives mired in poverty, hunger, disease. It is one of the major scandals of our day. This is not a Kingdom situation and much of it is caused not by an uncaring God, or natural causes but by human beings who just refuse to share their surplus wealth. As someone has said, the really rich are those whose needs are the least.A final reflection. We may feel that, in our society, we personally could by no stretch of the imagination be called rich and so the story does not apply to us. But we can cling to other things besides money. I might profitably ask myself today if there is anything at all in my life which I would find it very difficult to give up if God asked it of me. It might be a relationship, it might be a job or position, it might be good health.

To be a disciple Jesus means that he is asking me to follow him unconditionally, without any strings, ready to let go of anything and everything (although he may not actually ask me to do so). It is the readiness that counts. The man in the story did not even seem to have that.

Can a Catholic be a millionaire? What do you think? What do you think Jesus’ answer would be?

Week 08 | Tuesday

1 Pet 1:10-16

Peter continues to speak of the “salvation” which the Christians are confident of experiencing.

We now are the possessors of the grace which the prophets of the Old Testament looked for. They spoke in advance of the very blessings which the Christians are now experiencing, without knowing or experiencing them personally.  But, even at that time, they were already filled with the Spirit of Christ when they spoke of the sufferings of Christ to be followed by glory. There is a seamless unity between the Old and New Testaments as one flows into the other, as one prepares for the other.

At the same time, the way of Jesus is one which the Christians themselves will follow.  Those who are united to Christ will also, after suffering, enter into glory. And so they will benefit in the midst of their present sufferings from Jesus having already entered into glory.

“They (i.e. the prophets) knew by revelation that they were providing, not for themselves but for you.” And what they were providing was what has now been communicated to the Christians by the evangelisers of the Gospel, first of all, the Apostles - the proclaimers of the Gospel, the Good News. They did so “through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”, who came down on them at Pentecost and Jesus himself on the cross “breathed out his Spirit” (John 19:30, paredoken to pneuma, literally “he handed over the Spirit”)

These are matters of such deep interest and importance that the angels themselves “longed to look into them”. Their intense desire is highlighted by the Greek word rendered “to look into”. It means “to stoop and look intently” (It is the same word used of Peter and Mary Magdalen peering into the empty tomb at Jesus’ resurrection, John 20:5,11).

As Peter then says, our expected response is very clear. We have to move into action, “gird our loins” and put all our hope and confidence on the gift of salvation that will be ours when Christ appears. We have here the first of a long series of exhortations (actually imperatives) which end at 5:11. In the language of the 1st century the term ‘girding one’s loins’ meant that Peter’s readers were being called on to gather up their long, flowing garments and get ready for action. Jesus uses a similar image: “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning… so that [you] may open to [the bridegroom] when he comes and knocks” (Luke 12:35, 36)

Here they are to set their hopes completely on “the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Christ”. That grace is the final state of complete blessedness and deliverance from sin. Peter later indicates that a major purpose of this letter is to encourage and testify regarding the true grace of God (5:12).

We Christians have to change our whole lifestyle. We can no longer “yield to the desires that once shaped [us] in [our] ignorance”. We are to be like children, re-born into the family of God, children of our heavenly Father, able to pray, “Our Father in heaven” (Mt 6:9). Believers are also described, by Paul, as being adopted into God’s family (see Rom 8:15).

Even more, we are called on, in so far as we can, to imitate the holiness of God himself. “Be holy, as I am holy” (Lev 11:44-45). The word “holy” (‘, hagios) suggests, not a kind of piety, but being set apart from the majority. We have a vision of life and a consequent behaviour which makes us different. As Christians, that difference should clearly appear in the way we live. That is true holiness. Being ‘holy’ also implies a certain wholeness, a total harmony with ourselves, those around us, our whole environment and God.

Mark 10:28-31

Having overcome their initial shock at what Jesus had to say about the danger of wealth as a serious obstacle to being a follower of Jesus or being a member of the Kingdom, his disciples begin to take stock of their own actual situation. Clearly they cannot even be remotely numbered among the wealthy. Is there something to be said in favour of their relative poverty? “What about us?” asks the ever-irrepressible Peter. “We have left everything and followed you.”

Indeed they had. At the beginning of Mark’s gospel we are told that, on Jesus’ invitation, they had abandoned their whole livelihood and become followers of Jesus. It was a bold step when they really had no idea where it would lead them.

Jesus replies: “There is no one who has left house, brothers, sisters, father, children or land for my sake and for the sake of the Gospel who will not be repaid a hundred times over, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and land - not without persecutions - now in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life. Many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

This sounds like a pie-in-the-sky promise but has it been fulfilled? In fact, it has been - and many times over. By leaving a world where each one scrambles for a piece of the cake and where some get a huge piece and others only get crumbs, the Christian who truly has the spirit of the Gospel enters a community wherever everyone takes care of everyone else and where each one’s needs are taken care of by a sharing of the community’s resources.

This is how by leaving one’s home and family and giving away one’s material goods one enters a new family in which there are far more mothers, brothers, sisters; where one home is replaced by many homes offering their warmth and hospitality, offering a home from home.

This is a reality which, unfortunately, has not been realised among many Christians who live their daily lives in the rat race for acquisition characteristic of our modern capitalist societies and who believe that what they cannot get by their own efforts they will never come to enjoy.

Yet there are examples. One of the most obvious is religious life where the words of Jesus are lived out. The question is why should only religious have this experience of shared love and shared material goods? There are other communities like L’Arche, founded by Jean Vanier - a saint of our time, where the fit and the handicapped share a life together. There are basic Christian communities or some charismatic groups where families live in a communal style sharing all their resources.

But, by and large, we have to a great extent failed to realise that Christianity is not meant to be a religion where individuals, rich and poor, live individualistic lives and carry out certain ‘religious’ acts to “save their own souls” but that it essentially consists of creating a whole new way by which people relate to each other in mutual love and care.

Jesus says that in his world the first will be last and the last first. In fact, he is saying that in his world there is no first and no last. Perhaps this can be illustrated by a story:

A rich man was concerned about his future salvation, would he ‘go to heaven’ or not. In order to motivate him, he asked God to be given a preview of heaven and hell. God agreed. God said that they would first pay a visit to hell. When they got there the man was greatly surprised. He was brought into a sumptuous dining room of a large Chinese restaurant all decorated in red and gold. In the centre was a large round table and on it were the most exotic and delicious dishes one could imagine. Around the table were seated the diners. They were the most miserable-looking group one could imagine, all sitting there motionless and in silence just looking at the beautiful food in front of them. The reason for their glumness was that they had been given chopsticks which were three feet long! There was no way they could get any of the food into their mouths. And they were going to sit there like that for eternity. That was hell!

God then brought the man to heaven. Again he was amazed. Because they were in an identical Chinese banqueting room, with the same kind of table and the same wonderful food. But everybody was in the highest spirits. The sound of laughter rang out everywhere. They were really enjoying themselves and the meal. Was this because they had the normal length of chopsticks? No! They also had three-foot chopsticks but here everyone was reaching out food to people on the opposite side of the table. And that was heaven.

It is a very good illustration of today’s Gospel. When everyone serves, everyone is served. When everyone gives, everyone gets. It is a lesson even we Christians seem to find difficult to learn.

Week 08 | Wednesday

1 Pet 1:18-25

Peter reminds us that we have been “redeemed”. In the Scriptures, to ‘redeem’ (literally, ‘buy back’) means to free someone from something bad by paying a penalty, or a ransom. Similarly, in the Greek world slaves could be made free by the payment of a price, either by someone else or by the slave himself.

In this case, the ransom price is not silver or gold but something far more precious, Christ’s own blood poured out for us by his death on the cross. The result is the “forgiveness of sin” and our reconciliation with God.

The readers are told that they have been redeemed from the “futile conduct”, an empty way of life, that had been handed down by their ancestors. Some maintain that the letter is addressed to former pagans because the New Testament stresses the emptiness of pagan life. Others think they may have been Jews since Jews were traditionalists who stressed the influence of keeping the Law. A life simply based on the observance of external laws could not bring salvation and redemption. In the light of the context of the whole letter, probably both Jews and Gentiles are addressed.

They have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God, an “unblemished Lamb” foreseen long ago in God’s plan to bring us all back to him and replacing all other animal sacrifices of the Old Testament which were only a pale foreshadowing of what was to come. The Old Testament sacrifices were types (or foreshadowings) of Christ, depicting the ultimate and only effective sacrifice. An unblemished lamb was the centrepiece at the Passover meal. But for us, Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb, the One who takes away the sin of the world.

It is through this Lamb, raised by the Father into glory, that we have become believers in God and that, through our faith and hope, our lives have become centred on God, the only source of meaning to our lives.

Before time began Jesus was already chosen but only revealed in these times to those who are called. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1) “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col 1:15). Some think the Greek for this word can mean ‘foreknown’ rather than ‘chosen’. In other words, God knew before creation that it would be necessary for Christ to redeem the human race but he has revealed Christ only in these last times. Others interpret the word as meaning that in past eternity God chose Christ as Redeemer.

It is through this Jesus, raised from the dead to eternal glory, that we put all our faith and trust in God.

Our submission to this understanding of our origins leads necessarily and unavoidably to a deep love for our brothers and sisters. “Therefore, love one another constantly from the heart.”

All in all, our being re-born is the result of an enduring seed planted in our heart, that seed is the word (Word) of God. “The grass withers, the flower wilts, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (Is 40:6-8). Our new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit , but the “living and abiding” word of God also plays an important role, for it presents the Gospel to the sinner and calls on us to repent and believe in Christ.

The writer concludes by quoting from the prophet Isaiah (40:6-8):

“All flesh is grass… the grass withers…

but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

It is this word which the Letter is proclaiming, a word which is a source of life. It is the Gospel which we hear proclaimed to us. That Gospel can be summed up in the two points brought up in today’s passage: 1, we have been bought back from sin by the priceless blood of the Lamb, poured out on the cross for us; and 2, we show our gratitude for this by the unconditional love we show for our brothers and sisters everywhere.

Mark 10:32-45

We now come to the third and final foretelling of his passion, death and resurrection by Jesus. It is not insignificant that it follows immediately on the story of the rich man and the teaching of Jesus that goes with it. We are now going to see what discipleship of Jesus really means.

“They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem.” A statement of fact but pregnant with meaning. They were on the road, not just any road, but THE road and that road goes to Jerusalem and points to all that Jerusalem will mean for Jesus and his followers. Jesus is the Road, the Way and his way brings him to Jerusalem, the carrying of his cross, the letting go of his life in love of his Father and us, leading to the final triumph. Those who wish to be his disciples have to be ready to walk that road with him.

The disciples have not quite reached this stage of discipleship yet. As Jesus steps out firmly on the road to Jerusalem, his disciples straggle behind. They were “in a daze and those who followed him were apprehensive”. As far as they were concerned, Jesus was out of his mind. To go to Jerusalem at this time was asking for trouble, serious trouble. Everyone knew the Jewish leadership was out to get Jesus. Jerusalem was the last place to go.

Jesus shows them he is under no illusion about the situation. He gives them a detailed description of what is going to happen to him, more detailed than in the previous foretellings. The key term “handed over” is used again and, for the first time, a handing over to the “Gentiles” is mentioned. Condemnation to death will come from the leaders of his people but the carrying out of the execution will be the work of the Romans. It was not just some Jews who were responsible for Jesus’ death; we were there, too, in the person of the Roman Gentiles.

Nevertheless, earlier on the disciples had acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah and

Saviour-King of Israel. In the second prediction they had revealed an awareness that what Jesus was predicting was going to happen and so debated who his successor might be. Now, for the first time, the last part of the prediction - rising after three days - seems to be getting through.

Perhaps it was in that frame of mind that Jesus is approached by two of his closest disciples, James and John. However, it is also clear that they showed little understanding of all that Jesus had taught them so far. They approached him gingerly: “Master, we want you to do us a favour.” Replies Jesus: “What is it you want me to do for you?” (Note the question, because we will meet it again in tomorrow’s reading.)

The answer of the two brothers indicates how little they have understood of the mind of Jesus: “Allow us to sit one at your right hand and the other at your left in your glory. (After all, you did say three times that you were going to rise again after your death.)”

This is a perfect example of what the Chinese call guanxi, using a personal acquaintance or relationship to get in by the back door and obtain a favour otherwise out of reach. And by “glory” they are almost certainly thinking in worldly terms of Jesus as an earthly, victorious, all conquering king. The kind of person they expected the Messiah to be.

“You do not know what you are asking,” Jesus tells them. They neither know the kind of King Jesus is going to be nor do they know the price he is going to pay to enter that kingship. This is clear from the next question he puts to them: “Can you drink the cup that I must drink, or be baptised in the way in which I must be baptised?” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ passion and death, the price he will pay to reveal God’s love for his children.

We remember, later in the garden, as the weight of his coming passion presses him down, Jesus prays that the cup be taken away. “Baptism” implies a total immersion and Jesus will be totally overwhelmed with suffering and shame and humiliation.

Do the two disciples realise this? Are they ready to go through this with Jesus on their way to the privileges and glory they are asking for? “We can,” they confidently boast without realising just what is involved. In fact, with the rest of their companions they will scatter and disappear when these events overtake their Master.

Nevertheless, looking further ahead Jesus generously tells them that they will indeed one day share Jesus’ cup and his baptism of suffering and death. James would be one of the first martyrs of the young church. However, as to giving them the places of honour they were looking for, that was beyond Jesus’ power to give. “They belong to those to whom

they have been allotted.” In other words, these places are not just for the asking; they have to be earned. They will be given, not to those who furtively ask, but to those whose love most closely approaches that of Jesus himself.

Not surprisingly, the other ten were highly indignant when they found out what James and John had done behind their back. They were not indignant at the impropriety or the daring but that they had been taken advantage of. They wanted exactly the same things themselves.

Following the same pattern as the other previous incidents, the prediction of the Passion and Resurrection is followed by a show of misunderstanding by the disciples, leading to a teaching. And that is what comes now.

Jesus now patiently gives them another lesson on what real greatness in his Kingdom consists of. In the “world” to be great is to have power over others, to exercise authority, to be able to control and manipulate people to be at your disposal, to use people to attain your ends. However, in Jesus’ world those are really great who put themselves and their unique gifts to promote the well-being of brothers and sisters, especially those in most need. And the more people we can serve the greater we are.

‘Authority’ is not to control but to empower. And it is the role of anyone in authority to generate ideas, energy, creativity in those for whom one is responsible. In other words to serve those who have been entrusted to one’s authority. But it is a corruption of the word to become ‘authoritarian’ in such a position. After 2,000 years of Christianity it is a lesson practically all of us have yet to learn.

Week 08 | Thursday

1 Pet 2:2-5, 9-12

Yesterday Peter was speaking of the gift of God’s word to us. Today he sees that word as a form of nourishment - milk. We should be as eager as newborn babies for that “milk”. (Have we ever observed with what gusto the hungry baby attacks his mother’s teat and drinks deeply?) The author is speaking figuratively. Milk is not to be understood here as in 1 Cor 3:2 or Heb 5:12-14 - food for the immature in unfavourable contrast to solid food. With the complete nourishing ‘milk’ of God’s word we “grow into salvation”.

For those who have already got a first taste of what God has given to us in Christ (”You have tasted that the Lord is good”, Ps 34:8), there is an eagerness for that nourishment which will lead to growth and maturity in the Spirit. Since this taste has proved satisfactory, the believers are urged to long for additional spiritual food.

Peter now moves to another image when he speaks of Christ as a “living stone”, rejected by many but precious in the eyes of God. This Stone is the very foundation of the Church. It is a “living stone” both in the sense of referring to the real person of Christ and as a source of life for others. Christ as the Son of God has life in himself. He is also “living water” (Jn 4:10-14; 7:38), “living bread” (Jn 6:51) and the “living way” (Heb 10:20).

It is a stone chosen by God but so often rejected by human beings. In his addresses to the people in the Acts, Peter repeatedly makes a contrast between the hostility of the unbelieving towards Jesus and God’s exaltation of him.

But, not only that, the Christians, too, are living stones, “built as an edifice of the Spirit”. They derive their life from Christ, who is the original living Stone to whom they have come, the “life-giving Spirit”. These references to stones may well reflect Jesus’ words to Peter in Mt 16:18, where he is told that he is the Rock on which the whole structure of the future community is to be built, called here a “spiritual house”.

The house is spiritual in a metaphorical sense, but also in that it is formed and indwelt by the Spirit of God. Every stone in the house has been made alive by the Holy Spirit, sent by the exalted living Stone, Jesus Christ. The Old Testament temple provides the background of this passage. It reminds us of Paul’s telling Christians that they are the temples of the Holy Spirit and where the letter to the Ephesians speaks of each Christian as a stone contributing to building up the whole edifice of the Church. For now it is the people and not a building which is the Temple housing God’s presence in the world. Paul will say to the Corinthians: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16 and see Eph 2:19-22).

The purpose of that sacred building is to be a “holy priesthood”. This is the priesthood of the whole body of believers. As priests, believers are to (1) reflect the holiness of God and that of their high priest, (2) offer spiritual sacrifices, (3) intercede for others before God and (4) represent God in the presence of all. Through our priesthood we offer “spiritual sacrifices”, as opposed to sacrifices of animals and fruits. These can include: bodies offered to God (Rom 12:1), offerings of money or material goods (Phil 4:18; Heb 13:16), sacrifices of praise to God (Heb 13:15) and sacrifices of doing good (Heb 13:16). These sacrifices are “acceptable to God” through the work of our Mediator, Jesus Christ. In brief, believers are living stones that make up a spiritual temple in which, as a holy priesthood, they offer up spiritual sacrifices.

Quoting the book of Exodus (19:5-6) Peter, in a phrase much used in our liturgy, calls the Christians “a chosen race (Is 43:20-21), a royal priesthood (Is 61:6), a consecrated nation (Deut 28:9), a people [God] claims as his own” (Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; Is 43:21; Mal 3:17). It is a phrase originally directed to the Israelites but now extended to God’s people of all races, Jews and Gentiles alike, who have chosen Jesus as their Lord.

And in words recalling a passage from the prophet Hosea (2:23), we who were once called “no people” have become God’s own people. Once we were beyond God’s mercy and now we have found mercy. In Hosea it is Israel who is not God’s people; in Romans it is the Gentiles to whom Paul applies Hosea’s words; in 1 Peter the words are applied to both.

The final two verses (11-12) belong to the third part of this letter, where the position of the Christian in a hostile world is discussed

They are reminded that privilege and choice brings also responsibility. There is no room for complacency. We have to realise that in this world we are strangers and exiles. The word ‘world’ can be understood in both its scriptural senses. We do not belong to that world which is opposed to all that God and Jesus and the Gospel stand for. But even in the sense of the material environment in which we live, we are not meant to be here forever. It is not our permanent home. It is a place we pass through to a much greater destination.

Hence we are not to indulge our baser instincts which can undermine our spiritual destiny. We are not to be bothered by attacks made on us by outsiders who may call us “troublemakers”. Given our different life vision, this is only to be expected. Our Way is a “sign of contradiction” for many.

We are to persevere in following the Gospel because many unbelievers, seeing how we behave, seeing our integrity, love, compassion and sense of justice and peace, will ultimately come to praise not us but the God who enables us to live this way. Jesus had said the same in the Sermon on the Mount: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:16).

May they observe the good things that we do so that in time they are led to change their ways and give glory to God “on the day of visitation”. The Greek word translated “observe” refers to a careful watching, over a period of time. The pagans’ final evaluation is not a ’snap judgment’. The “day of visitation” is perhaps the day of judgment and its ensuing punishment, or possibly the day when God visits a person with salvation. The believer’s good life may then influence the unbeliever to repent and believe.

It is a very meaningful reading. It is full of lovely images of Christ and of our relationships with him and it concludes by reminding us how we are to reveal the presence of Christ’s Spirit within us by the way we relate to all those around us.

Mark 10:46-52

At a first reading this is simply another pleasant story about Jesus healing a blind man. However, as we shall see, there is much more here than meets the eye. Although Mark’s gospel is the one which gives most details when telling a story, leading people to speak of his using the memories of an eyewitness (perhaps Peter), there is a lot more symbolism in his stories than at first seems apparent.

First of all, this story is strategically placed. It comes at the end of a long portion of the gospel beginning with the healing of a deaf man (8:31-37). This section includes the high point at the middle of the gospel where the disciples recognise Jesus as Messiah and Lord and also the three predictions of his passion, death and resurrection with their accompanying teachings. In between are several other episodes and teachings. Through it all we see the disciples stumbling along in various degrees of misunderstanding as they accompany their Master.

Today’s story brings all this to an end and, in a way, can be seen as a summing up of all that has gone before. Immediately after this, the final phase of the gospel begins with Jesus in Jerusalem for the last time.

We find Jesus and his disciples in Jericho, which lies just north of Jerusalem. They are journeying south on their way from Galilee. We saw yesterday how alarmed they were about Jesus’ determination to head for a place so full of danger for him (and them). As Jesus was leaving the city, accompanied by his disciples and a large crowd of people, there was a blind beggar called Bar Timaeus (son of Timaeus) sitting beside the road. Already we have in this apparently simple description a sentence full of symbolism, some of which we will discuss further on.

Jesus is not just leaving the city*; he is on the first stage of the final and climactic period of his mission on earth. He is heading for Jerusalem. Although he is surrounded by a large number of people, most of them are with him only physically but not in spirit, as we shall soon see.

When the blind man hears all the commotion he naturally wants to know what is going on and is told that Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. Immediately on hearing this he calls out, “Jesus, son of David, have compassion on me!” It is a form of what we now call the “Jesus Prayer”. A prayer we need to make constantly; a prayer we can only make sincerely when we are truly aware and accepting of our dependence on Jesus’ help and guidance, when we fully acknowledge the distance that exists between what we are and what Jesus is calling us to be.

In making such a prayer, the blind man is opening himself up to all that Jesus can and wants to give him. However, the surrounding crowd, smug in their (physical) closeness to Jesus and contemptuous of an irritating beggar, try to silence him. How often people have given up their approach to Jesus because of discouragements they have met! How often have we, perhaps, been a source of discouragement or scandal to people who were tentatively looking for Jesus and the meaningful life he can open up for us?

This man, however, is not discouraged. The more he is scolded by the crowd, the louder he shouts. Jesus has told us to ask, not once, but many times. This the man does. Then Jesus stops. If the man had not called, Jesus might not have stopped. He would simply have continued on his journey. Jesus constantly passes through our lives. Every single day. How often have we failed to recognise his presence? How often have we failed to call him? How many times has he passed on and out of our day?

“Call him over,” Jesus tells those around him. Notice that Jesus does not call the man himself. He tells others to call him. Again that is something that is the norm in our lives. If we believe that Jesus has appeared to us in a vision and directly called us, either we are ready for canonisation or, more likely, for a mental home! No, it is through others that we are constantly being called. In fact, we might reflect today on the huge number of people who have directly or indirectly brought Christ into our lives. It is because of them that we are what we are now. Without them, we would not know Jesus or the Gospel or the Church.

Notice, too, the fickleness of the crowd. Those who were just now scolding the man are now urging him to approach Jesus. “Courage, do not be afraid; he is calling you.” How many people need to hear those words! And how often they never do! Yes, there is no need ever to be afraid of Jesus, our Good Shepherd. And he is calling everyone of us, in some way or other. But perhaps many have never heard the call, because Jesus expected me to do the calling. But I was too absorbed in myself to do so.

“Get up!” they tell the man. Yes, he is being told to rise, the same verb that describes the rising of Jesus from the dead. He is not just being told to get on his feet but to enter a whole new way of living. He throws off his cloak, which presumably was all he was wearing, and comes to Jesus. He comes to Jesus encumbered with absolutely nothing. It is also reminiscent of the disciples leaving their boats, their nets and their family to follow Jesus. It is reminiscent of the early Christians stripping themselves of all their clothes, symbolic of their sinful past, as they go down into the baptismal pool. When we approach Jesus, we need divest ourselves of everything, get rid of everything we tend to cling to. (Remember the story of the ‘rich’ man earlier this week?)

Jesus now asks him: “What do you want me to do for you?” Isn’t this a wonderful thing to hear from Jesus? But he is asking the very same question of us every day. We often tend to ask what Jesus wants us to do for him but he is also asking us what he can do for us. And when he asks you that question today - as he will - what answer are you going to give him? What you say is going to reveal a great deal about you and your priorities in life.

In a sense, of course, Jesus does not need to know the answer to your question, but you do. And the answer comes from the asking. And have you noticed any changes in the way you would answer the question over the years? And what would today’s answer be?

By the way, did we not hear Jesus asking the same question before? Yes indeed. In yesterday’s Gospel when James and John came asking for a favour, Jesus asked them, “What do you want me to do for you?”

Compare now the two answers. The disciples asked for a privilege, for positions of status and authority and power, to be one up over others. What did the blind man ask for? “Rabbuni, that I may see again.” Of course, in our present context he is not just asking for physical sight. He is looking for something much more important; he is looking for IN-sight, the ability to see into the meaning of life and its direction and its ultimate values.

In answer to the question that Jesus is asking us, we could hardly make a better response: “Lord, that I may SEE again.” When we truly see with our inner eye, it changes our whole way of looking at the world and our behaviour changes accordingly. We cannot ask for anything more crucial in life. Perhaps we feel all along that we have been able to see both literally and figuratively. But today we are asking to see again, to have a deeper vision that goes much further into the ultimate meaning of our lives.

Fr Tony de Mello speaks of this in his last book. He calls it Awareness, being wide awake and living with your eyes open. No wonder Jesus responds generously to the man’s request: “Go; your faith, your deep trust in me, has saved you.” “Saved”, that is, restored him to complete wholeness. Only a person with perfect sight (in the sense we have discussed) is truly whole. Only such a person knows where to go and how to get there.

And what happens then? The beggar receives the sight he asked for (”Ask, and you shall receive”) and what does he do? He does the only thing that a person with true vision can do - he follows Jesus on the road, that Road, that Way to Jerusalem and all that it means. He becomes unconditionally a disciple.

Going back now to the beginning of the story we were told that Bar Timaeus, a blind beggar was sitting by the road. This description is one that fits every person who discovers Jesus. We are, without Jesus, blind, we cannot see clearly although we may be very clever and highly educated. But, if we cannot see what Jesus sees, we are sightless, blind.

And we are beggars. We can only truly come to Christ when we realise that, whatever intellectual, social or material endowments we may have, we are basically poor. That was the problem of the rich man who came to Jesus. In his monetary wealth, he was not aware of his radical poverty. We have nothing that is really ours.

Thirdly, the man was sitting beside the road, not on it. And this indeed is the lot of everyone who sits beside the road, to be blind and a beggar in need. The road, as we have said, in the Gospel story is a symbol of the Way that is Christ. It is where there is Truth and Life. And so at the end of the story, the man having made his compact with Jesus, is now able to see, is no longer a beggar, and is accompanying Jesus on the road, on the Way.

This story has meanings going far beyond a mere miracle story. It is a beautiful summing up of how Jesus’ disciples learnt to see and walk with him along the Way. It is a Gospel in miniature, a vignette of the spiritually deprived person discovering where Truth and Life are and committing oneself to it totally.

*Luke mentions the same visit but describes Jesus entering Jericho. Here he has his encounter with the Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector (Luke 19:1ff)

Week 08 | Friday

1 Pet 4:7-13

Today we jump to chapter 4 of Peter’s first letter. We have skipped over a longish passage where he gives instructions to various classes and groups of society. Today’s reading consists of the final verses in Part III on ‘The Christian in a Hostile World’ and the opening verses of Part IV which consists of ‘Advice to the Persecuted’.

Today he gives some warnings about the end time which is believed to be close at hand. The early Christians expected to see Jesus come again in their lifetime. But by the time the later writings of the New Testament came to be composed, this expectation was fading and a longer wait was anticipated. This also changed church attitudes which looked more to present behaviour as a long-term preparation for the coming of the Lord.

The anticipation of the end times, particularly Christ’s return in glory, should influence the believers’ attitudes, actions and relationships. “Be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayer”. If they are to be ready for this coming, Christians are to be characterised by reason; they are to make wise, mature decisions and are to have a clearly defined purpose in life. Prayer should form a central part of the Christian’s life - not just the reciting of prayers but being in close dialogue with the Lord, of which a large part should be listening.

In their relationships with each other, love, a real care for each other, should dominate. That love should be “intense” because “love covers a multitude of sins”. A phrase which we can use very glibly but it contains a profound truth. The truly loving person, the one dedicated to taking care of the needs of others, can never be far from God. Wherever there is love, there is God; wherever there is love, there cannot be sin.

And such love clearly includes the Christian virtue of hospitality, of opening one’s doors not only to friends but even to strangers, especially those in need. In addition, all have received gifts in abundance from the Lord and these are to be generously put at the service of others. That is why they were given in the first place. In a climate of fear and anxiety, where love is missing, it is so easy just to think selfishly of oneself.

Those who have the gift of public speaking, for instance, should use that gift to share the message of the Gospel. And this applies not just to community leaders but to every person to whom the Spirit speaks. Those deputed to minister to the community (including liturgical service) should do so with all the strength that God has given them.

In a word, all is to be done for the greater glory of God. Everything we have belongs to him and our enrichment is in giving everything back to him - through those around us.

In the final part of the reading, there are words of encouragement. He addresses his readers as ‘Beloved’ (’, agapetoi) - the objects of his agape-love. They are reminded not to be surprised at trials they may be experiencing from those who attack or persecute them. Far from being disturbed by this, they should rejoice to be able to share in the sufferings of Jesus. When it comes to misunderstandings, abuse and suffering physical violence Jesus has experienced it all - and for our sake. It was Peter, we might remember here, who opposed the idea of Jesus suffering (Matt 16:21-23).

Much of this advice needs to be heard and taken on board by each one of us. It is as valid now as when it was written 2,000 years ago.

GOSPEL (Mark 11:11-26)

We are now entering the final part of Mark’s gospel. Jesus is now in Jerusalem and in the final days of his ministry.

Today we have the strange incident of the fig tree. Jesus was leaving Bethany for nearby Jerusalem and was hungry. He went up to a fig tree looking for fruit to eat, even though it was not the time of year for figs. Jesus then cursed the tree: “Never again shall anyone eat of your fruit!” Why curse a tree for not having what it could not have at that time?

In the evening on their way back to Bethany, the disciples saw the fig tree that Jesus had cursed all withered.

This story is generally understood as a kind of parable. The fig tree without fruit represents those people among the Jews who rejected Jesus. When he came to them looking for faith in his message, he found nothing. In a sense, they had closed their minds and withered up.

This meaning is reinforced by another event which is sandwiched into the middle of the fig tree story. This is a common device used by Mark and it is called ‘inclusion’, when one passage is enclosed within another. (We remember the story of the woman with the haemorrhage which is included within the story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter.)

After cursing the fig tree Jesus went to the Temple in Jerusalem and began driving out all those who were trading in the Temple court. He accused them of turning God’s house of prayer into a market place. It was an example of people who had reduced their religious faith to mere commercialism. Religious ritual had been turned into an opportunity for making money. The meaning of the Temple as the symbol of God’s presence among his people was being lost. And there was also the failure to see the presence and power of God working through Jesus himself. The fig tree was adorned with beautiful leaves but there was no fruit.

And so at the end Jesus urges his disciples to develop real faith, a real trust and insight into God’s presence in their lives. To those with true faith, Jesus says, just anything is possible. It is an essential condition for prayer. And prayer must include a willingness to forgive and be reconciled with those who cause us difficulties so that we may find forgiveness and reconciliation from God for our own faults and failings in his service.

Let us pray today for that kind of faith. A faith that produces much fruit. A faith that generates harmony and togetherness.

Week 08 | Saturday

Jude 17, 20-25

As we come to the end of this week, we have a solitary reading from the Letter of Jude. It is a very short letter, consisting of just one chapter of 25 verses. Our reading comes from the latter part of the letter. In general, the letter is a stern warning against false teachers who are doing untold harm to the community.

The first piece of advice is to keep in mind the prophetic teachings of the apostles. The coming of these godless heretics should not take believers by surprise, for it had been predicted by the apostles.

Addressing them as ‘Beloved’ (’, agapetoi), in contrast to the ungodly false teachers about whom this letter speaks at length, Jude gives them some exhortations on how to cope with these threats to their faith. He urges them to pray under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, they are to remain persevering in the love of God. God keeps believers in his love and enables them to keep themselves in his love. As Paul had said so graphically: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, no powers, nor height, nor death, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39). As long as they remain open to that love, the Christians can be sure of “the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to life eternal”.

At the same time, some who are confused by the false teachers need to have their thinking corrected, while others need to be snatched from imminent destruction and loss.

“On others have mercy with fear..” - even in showing mercy and compassion to those who stray, one may oneself be trapped by the allurement of their false teaching - “…abhorring even the outer garment stained by the flesh”. The wicked are pictured as so corrupt that even their garments are polluted by their sinful nature.

The reading ends with a magnificent doxology, one of the finest in the whole of the New Testament.

We look to protection from the only One who can protect us and help us stand unstained and triumphant in the presence of his glory. After all the attention necessarily given in this letter to the ungodly and their works of darkness, Jude concludes his letter by focusing attention on God, who is fully able to protect those who put their trust in him.

Every age in the Church, not least our own, has people going around with all kinds of strange and new messages. And there are always those who, in Paul’s words, have “itching ears” for the latest novelty. Some of these novelties can be highly destructive as we have seen in the case of some of the more outlandish sects where many people, including children, unnecessarily lost their lives or where there was indulgence in behaviour that was either bizarre or humanly degrading and abusive.

The Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, have their faults and need continue to learn where the Truth is but there is a solid foundation in the Word of God that comes to us through Jesus Christ that we abandon at our peril.

Mark 11:27-33

Jesus is now in Jerusalem. It is the last phase of his public life. Hostility is building up against him. In today’s reading, while walking in the Temple area, he is confronted by a group of Jewish leaders, chief priests, scribes and elders. These are the people who formed the supreme council which will later condemn him to death.

“By what authority are you doing these things?” they ask. The implication is that he is not doing it on their authority which they regard as supreme. In his usual manner, Jesus counters with another question. He asks them if the work of John the Baptist was of human or divine origin.

They immediately realise that answering Jesus’ question raises a serious dilemma. If they were to say John’s baptism was from God, then it could be asked why they did not take part in it (as large numbers of the ordinary people did - and as Jesus himself did). The Gospel describes the leaders as simply coming to observe John as outsiders and judges.

On the other hand if they were to say they considered John’s baptism as merely a human thing, then it would offend all those people who had the highest respect for John and saw in him a prophet of God.

Weakly Jesus’ questioners reply: “We do not know.” A strange and not very convincing reply from the spiritual leaders of the people! Jesus then refuses to answer the question they asked him.

But Jesus’ case was similar to that of John. The people, who had heard Jesus speak (”No man has ever spoken like this”) and saw his cures (”God has visited his people”), had no doubts whatever about the source of Jesus’ authority. “The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the Scribes” (Mark 1:22).

The leaders’ own question was a clear indication of their prejudice and willful blindness in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We too, of course, can have a similar blindness. We can refuse to see the presence and activity of God in situations where we do not want to see it, in people where we do not want to see it. But God can use any person, any experience, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, to communicate with us. “Help me, Lord, to seek and find and respond to you in every experience of my life.”

Week 09 | Monday

2 Pet 1:2-7

Today we begin reading from the Second Letter of Peter. There will be just two readings, today and tomorrow.

“Second Peter is one of the most interesting New Testament books. Written perhaps by a later disciple of Peter, it may be the last written book of the Bible. It begins with this beautiful passage: our faith is a gift, leading to one virtue as the foundation of another.” (Vatican II Missal)

The letter begins by asserting a theme which runs through it, namely, that the only knowledge we really need is a personal knowledge of God and his Son, Jesus. The author is challenging the heretical teaching of the Gnostics who said that the only thing needed was knowledge, independent of any behaviour. Knowledge of God and Christ necessarily leads to following the Way of Jesus, a way of both knowing and doing.

God’s loving power has given us everything we need to live a life that is full and meaningful, which is a life in close relationship with him. God has made available all that we need spiritually through our knowledge of him. No special ‘secret’ knowledge, only accessible to initiates, is necessary for the Christian to achieve fulfilment of life. The glory and power of God was clearly manifest in the teaching and signs that Jesus gave, clearly indicating his divine origin. Later in the letter, the author will mention specifically the experience of the Transfiguration, of which Peter was a witness.

The Gnostics, who followed a way of thinking which was a constant challenge to the early Christians, believed that salvation depended on having a knowledge of “mysteries”, secret revelations, only given to them. They also tended to see evil in all material things, a kind of distorted Platonism.

God, in his love for us, has showered us with precious gifts, including material gifts. And, provided we abandon a world corrupted by irrational and hedonistic desires (a false infatuation with the material), we can become sharers in the very life of God, that life of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Our whole Christian life is ordered to having that experience.

The rest of the reading lists the steps by which we develop a well-rounded and fruitful Christian life.

The foundation of our inner goodness is our total faith and trust in God’s love and our commitment to the Way shown to us by Jesus. That faith is supplemented and fulfilled by virtuous behaviour which flows from it. “Virtue with knowledge”: in other words virtue that is not a mere pious veneer but one that comes from an ever deeper understanding and grasp of the way of life that Jesus proposes to us in the Gospel - a Message accessible to all.

This knowledge leads to self-control. Many of those infected by Gnosticism, which put all emphasis on the acquisition of secret knowledge, believed that self-control was completely unnecessary. Knowledge, not behaviour, was the source of salvation. The Christian belief is quite different. The deeper our knowledge of God and Jesus the more our whole lives, including our behaviour, are affected. We do good, not because we have to, or force ourselves to, but because we want to. Our behaviour flows naturally from our insight into what is true and good.

Self-control, in turn, leads to endurance, to perseverance even in the face of either competing attractions or painful obstacles.

Endurance in turn is supported by devotion, which implies a deep warm-hearted commitment and not just a dogged stubbornness.

Devotion leads to mutual affection. To be a Christian is not to go alone to God but in companionship with others who share the same vision.

This mutual affection then blossoms into love, that outgoing, unconditional desire for the well-being of the brother and sister.

This is a very different picture from the purely head-centred intellectualism of the Gnostic which can only end in a cold isolationism with little regard for the well-being of the world in which we live and through which we Christians are convinced is the place in which to find and love our God.

Among other things, the author here is warning us against any form of elitism, which is a constant threat to our understanding of the Christian life. Such an elitism can lead to the formation of groups which lay claim to a higher level of Christian living and look down on “outsiders”. The beauty of the Gospel is that it can be grasped adequately by even the illiterate. (Perhaps that message was brought home some years ago when the founder of Opus Dei, Fr Escriva, was beatified together with a Canossian Sister, who had formerly been a slave in Latin America and had no formal schooling whatever.)

That does not mean we should not do all we can to have a deeper understanding of our faith. If we have the intellectual capacity to do so, we should. A great scandal among us is the ignorance of many educated Catholics about Scripture, theology and spirituality.

At the same time, we also have to affirm that the very highest levels of mystical prayer are accessible to those with no education at all. Knowing Jesus is a lot more important than knowing a lot about him.

Mark 12:1-12

This will be our last week of readings from Mark’s gospel. We are now in chapter 12 and fast approaching the climax of Jesus’ life and mission. This chapter is marked by a growing conflict between Jesus and the religious and political leaders of his own people. The chapter begins today with a parable (or, more accurately, allegory) directed towards that leadership. Its meaning was very clear to those who heard it.

It tells the story of a man who planted a vineyard, fitted it out with all that was necessary and then let it out to tenants to cultivate. It is clear that the owner is God, the vineyard is Israel and the tenants the people of Israel. The words of Jesus echo very closely a similar image in a poem by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 5:1ff). In Isaiah’s image the vines only produce sour grapes.

In Jesus’ story there are evidently good harvests. The problem arises when the master sends his servants to collect what belongs to him of the harvests. One after the other, the servants are driven away or beaten up or even killed. It is a clear reference to the way that God’s people treated the many prophets which God had sent to them.

In exasperation, the owner decides to send his only son, expecting that they will at least respect him. But no. The tenants argue that by killing the only heir, the vineyard will inevitably become their property. When the son (Jesus) arrives, they seize him, kill him and throw him out of the vineyard (a reference to Jesus being crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem).

What will the owner do now? “He will make an end of the tenants and give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this text of scripture: ‘It was the stone rejected by the builders that became the keystone’?” Jesus is rejected by the leaders and by many (but not all) of his own people. The Gentiles will be invited to take their place and will be more than happy to fill it.

The words quoted from Psalm 118 can apply either to Jesus or the Gentiles. Jesus, the rejected and crucified one, becomes the cornerstone. Or, the despised Gentiles become the recipients of God’s love and grace and the cornerstone of the new Christian communities.

Clearly, this story did nothing to endear Jesus to the leaders. They would have (as foretold by the story they had just heard) seized him but they were afraid of the crowd (also Jews) who stood in awe of Jesus, his words and works.

This is one of these stories where we can be tempted to sit in judgement on those who rejected Jesus. But we are not reading it today for that purpose. Rather we are being asked whether we are listening to the word of God as it comes to us in the various people that God sends into our lives. How much better are we than the Scribes and Pharisees? How often do we rationalise ourselves out of doing what God clearly wants us to do?

What welcome do we give to God’s messengers? Do we even recognise them when they come? Maybe today, now, would be a good time to listen more carefully than we normally do.

Week 09 | Tuesday

2 Pet 3:12-15, 17-18

The early Christians had high expectations that the Lord would come back to them very soon. As time passed, they began to realise that it might not be as soon as they had first thought, namely in their own lifetime. This is reflected in the way later books of the New Testament are written.

But even here in this relatively late book the anticipation is still there. We are even urged to hasten that day. How can we do this? By working harder to bring more people to know the Way of Christ, to share his vision of life and thus realise the full establishment of the Kingdom. We still have a long way to go!

The “day of the Lord”, the end of the world is visualised as utter destruction of all we know now but it will be replaced by “a new heaven and a new earth”, words taken from Isaiah and also used in the book of Revelation (21:1). This new world is the “home of righteousness”. There truth and goodness will dwell as unchanging and unchangeable elements. This will be a time when what we pray for in the Lord’s Prayer - “your Kingdom come, your will be done” - will be fully realised.

For each one us, it is a reminder to lead lives “without stain or defilement” (words applied to Jesus in 1 Peter) and at peace with God. In this way, we are always prepared no matter what time the Lord decides to take us to himself. There is a lovely sentence here too: “Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation.” This echoes words of Jesus in the Gospel that he has come not to condemn but to bring life.

There are warnings about being led astray by the “error of the wicked and the unprincipled”. In this case, the warning is against Gnostic teachers who held ideas which were in conflict with the Gospel. In our day too, there are many kinds of “wicked error” which can lead us far from the ways of truth, love and justice.

Instead, we are told to “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”. To grow in grace is to open ourselves more and more to the experience of being loved by God. To grow in the knowledge of Jesus is not to know more about him but to grow into a personal and intimate relationship of mutual love.

This kind of knowledge is on a different plane altogether from the esoteric knowledge that the Gnostics proclaimed. In our own day, some come pretty close to it when they put an excessive emphasis on doctrinal orthodoxy. It is a modern version of Pharisaism. Jesus said that people would know true Christians not by their theology but by the love they show for each other, and especially for those in any kind of need. “By this will all know that you are my followers, that you have love one for another” (John 13:35) and “May they be completely one so that the world may know that you have sent and have loved them” (John 17:23).

Mark 12:13-17

Possibly in response to the parable of the wicked tenants which we read yesterday, a delegation comes to confront Jesus. Their composition is rather unusual but proves the saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be hard to find two groups more ideologically opposed than the Pharisees and the Herodians. The Pharisees set the highest standards in their observance of the Law. They were highly patriotic and strongly anti-Roman. The Herodians, on the other hand, were seen as rather lax and not particularly devout. And they had the reputation of being a little too cosy with the Roman colonial powers. In normal circumstances these two groups would never be seen in each other’s company. But now they had a common opponent in Jesus. For Jesus was seen, depending on how he was interpreted, as challenging the Law on the one hand and as a potential rallying point for anti-Roman sentiment.

The confrontation is carried out with a good deal of subtlety. It begins with shameless flattery. “We know you are an honest man, that you are not afraid of anyone, because a man’s rank means nothing to you, and that you teach the way of God in all honesty.” In fact, every word of this is absolutely true and would that it could be said of every one of us! In their book, however, it means that Jesus is a very dangerous person and, indeed, people like Jesus have run into trouble all through history, not least in our own days.

Having, as they imagined, totally disarmed Jesus by their positive approach, they smoothly slip in the knife. One can almost hear the blandness and feigned innocence with which they ask their question: “Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” It sounds to us a very straightforward question but it was, in fact, one of the most politically sensitive issues of the day. And, of course, it was a trick question of the “Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife?” kind.

If Jesus said it was permissible, then he incurred the wrath of every Jewish patriot, most of all the powerful Pharisees, who deeply resented the presence of the Roman power on their land. If he said it was not permissible, then he could immediately be denounced by people like the Herodians to the Roman authorities for subversion. In either case, he would lose.

Jesus, of course, immediately sees through their deceit. He asks to be shown a denarius, a coin roughly equal to a day’s wage. It was a Roman coin and it carried the head of the emperor, Caesar Augustus. Pointing to the image, Jesus asks whose head it is and he is told it is that of the emperor. “In that case,” replied Jesus, “give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor and to God what belongs to God.”

His enemies were reduced to speechlessness and they had no comeback. It was an answer that said everything and said nothing. It said everything because no one could quarrel with it; it said nothing because it did not decide in any way what belonged to God and what to the emperor.

The whole scene, of course, reflects a serious problem besetting the early Church. How much allegiance did they owe, as Christians, to the temporal power, especially one where the emperor was seen as having divine prerogatives or was openly persecuting Christians? There were clearly limits to the allegiance they could give. This resulted in waves of persecutions and large numbers dying martyrs’ deaths rather than compromise their faith.

It is still a live issue for us today. It concerns the question of separation of Church and state and how that is to be interpreted. It concerns the way we - both electors and elected - vote when sensitive moral issues are at stake.

In one sense, God has a total claim on our allegiance. There is nothing which does not belong to him. Nevertheless, society, through its legitimate authorities, also has a claim on our allegiance. It can make demands on us in asking us to contribute e.g. through taxation, to promoting the overall well-being of our whole community, especially of those who are in need.

As Christians, we cannot simply isolate ourselves from the political arena, that is, the area in which the interests of the citizenry is discussed and managed. The political arena is inseparable from issues of truth and justice and there is no way that Christians, who are committed to building the Kingdom, cannot be concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens. “The Church should not dabble in politics,” say some. No, it should not dabble; it should be deeply involved in every important moral and social issue.

Nevertheless, the words of Jesus remain our guiding principle: We give to God what belongs to him; we give to society what it has a right to ask of us, our cooperation in making it a place guided by the principles and values of the Kingdom. To do anything less is to fail to give everything to God.

Week 09 | Wednesday

2 Tim 1:1-3, 6-12

For the remaining four days of this week we will be reading from the Second Letter to Timothy, one of the so-called “Pastoral Letters”. (The First Letter of Timothy is read during Weeks 23 and 24 in Cycle I of the First Readings.)

There are questions about the letter’s real authorship but it is presented as a letter from the apostle Paul to one of his most faithful assistants and companions, Timothy, who came from the Roman province of Galatia in what is part of Turkey today. In the opening of today’s letter Paul refers to Timothy as “my dear child, whom I love”. There was, indeed, a large age gap between them.

Paul calls himself an ‘apostle’, one specially commissioned by Christ, putting him on the same level as the Twelve who accompanied Jesus in his public life. And his mission is for “the promise of life in Christ Jesus”. As an apostle he is being sent out to preach and explain that the Good News of that unending life with God is available to all those who open themselves to it.

There then follows a prayer of thanksgiving as Paul remembers and prays for his companion, Timothy.

The main part of the letter now begins, starting with exhortations to Timothy. Paul begins by urging Timothy to “stir into flame” the gift of the Spirit which had been given to him when Paul laid his hands on him. The gift of the Spirit can lie dormant in us unless we exercise it regularly and make it an active element in our lives. It is something we are all in constant danger of doing. Probably few of us effectively use the special gifts that God has given each one of us for service and benefit of others.

And that Spirit, Paul emphasises, is not a “cowardly” one. On the contrary, it makes us strong, loving and wise. We need strength and courage, coupled with wisdom, if we are to be effective in sharing the Gospel with others. It is possible that a certain lack of confidence in him by Paul was a problem for Timothy. This may have arisen because of Timothy’s relative youth. What the Spirit gives is “power and love and self-control”. That power is an inner strength and not the kind of power that dominates others. The love is the great desire to work for the well-being of others, especially to bring them to become aware of and to respond to the love of God that comes to them through Jesus Christ. Self-control is not the suppression of desires but rather a passion to do what is good and right.

And, for that reason, Paul tells Timothy neither to be ashamed of the witness he is called to give nor of his companion Paul, who is now languishing in prison for the sake of the Gospel. In fact, he is to expect some measure of hardship in preaching the Gospel. That is something we all need to be prepared for. The threat of death hangs over every Christian who proclaims the Gospel but Jesus has brought us life and immortality, which no one can take away.

At the same time, Paul says, we have this huge gift of having been called to a life of holiness. We have not merited this in any way; it is pure gift. It is part of God’s plan from the very beginning but now made visible through the life of Jesus, the Word of God among us. “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph 1:4)

It is in the service of this Gospel that Paul was called as preacher, apostle and teacher and it is precisely because of this service that he now suffers imprisonment. Clearly he is not ashamed of this and has no regrets. “I am not ashamed,” he says and adds the lovely, much-quoted saying, “I know him in whom I have believed”. This is his total confidence in his Lord. It is a person-to-person friendship which nothing can shake. Paul is sure that his Lord will protect him to the very end.

Would that we had that confidence in Jesus that Paul had! Would that we were ready to suffer any hardship so that the Gospel might be heard and accepted by more of those around us! As G K Chesterton said, “Christianity has not failed; it has not even been tried.”

Mark 12:18-27

Jesus faces another confrontation today, this time with Sadducees. The Sadducees were a group which did not accept many of the beliefs held by the Pharisees. They confined their beliefs to the Pentateuch, the so-called books of Moses, the first five books of our Bible.

Among the beliefs they rejected was that of life after death. Armed with this conviction, they approached Jesus with a hypothetical case which they felt could not be answered by him.

A woman married a man but he died before they could have children. In order that her late husband, the eldest son in his family, would have heirs, she followed a law (known as the Levirate law) which said she had to marry her husband’s brother. She did so but he also died and, in the end, she married seven brothers, all of whom died before a child could be conceived.

The Sadducees’ question to Jesus was that, if there is life after death, which of the seven men would be her real husband in the next life? For them, of course, there was no problem but, for Jesus and all those who believed in an after-life, they thought it created an insoluble situation.

Jesus answers them on two fronts. First, he says that in the next life marriage will no longer exist. People will all be related equally in a common relationship with God. Second, he astutely quotes from the book of the Exodus, a book of the Bible which the Sadducees acknowledge as divine revelation. Jesus reminds them that God spoke to Moses from out of the burning bush and said, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6). So Jesus adds: “He is God, not of the dead but of the living.” God did not say to Moses: “I was the God of Abraham”, or “I used to be the God of Abraham’” but “I AM here and now the God of Abraham”.

Perhaps we might not be altogether swayed by this argument but, faced with a text from a part of the Bible they accepted as divine revelation, it was a statement the Sadducees could not question. And they had no comeback.

It is useful for us to be able to handle distortions of our faith which can sometimes be thrown at us. It is essential that we are familiar with our Bible in order to do so. But we might also say that we do not bring people to Christ simply by besting them in arguments. The real way to bring people to Christ is by the compelling example of our words, our actions and our attitudes reflecting his love and tolerance.

Week 09 | Thursday

2 Tim 2:8-15

Paul reminds Timothy today that Jesus is both descended from David and risen from the dead. This tells us that Jesus is both one of us because descended from a human being and also divine because of his rising from death to life. Since Christ is God, his death has infinite value; since he shares our human nature, he could rightfully offer himself in our place.

This is the heart of the Gospel that Paul has preached and because of that he is now in chains. He is presented as being in prison awaiting sentence or even execution. But, he emphasises, there is no way that the word of God can be chained. There is no way that Truth can be permanently suppressed. Truth always will out (if one may paraphrase Shakespeare). Many witnesses to the Gospel have proved that over the centuries, down to our own day. Prison and torture often have the very opposite effect; they only increase the desire to make the truth known.

So, Paul will gladly undergo any suffering so that those called to believe in Christ will experience salvation in Jesus’ name. No suffering is too great if it brings about the salvation of God’s chosen ones who have yet to believe, a salvation which finds its climax in eternal companionship with Christ in glory.

To illustrate his teaching, he quotes from what seems to be an early Christian hymn:

If we have died with him,
we shall live with him; (cf. Rom 6:8)

If we hold out to the end,
we shall reign with him.
But if we deny him,
he will deny us. (cf. Matt 10:22,33; Luke 12:9)

If we are unfaithful,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot deny himself. (cf. Num 23:19; Rom 3:3-4)

The point to which Paul appeals is that suffering for Christ will be followed by glory. If we fully identify ourselves with the Christ who died on the Cross, we shall also enter into glory with him. It is an exhortation to all of us to persevere in following Jesus, even when it involves difficulties and dangers.

But “if we deny him, he will deny us”. This is certainly not to be understood as a tit-for-tat situation. It is unthinkable that God could act in that way. Rather, if we abandon the Gospel or part of it for some temporary advantage, then we are no longer with him.

Even when we are unfaithful, God himself remains always consistently faithful in his love for us. He cannot change. But neither can he compromise to accept us when we are in denial of truth and love. It is not he who abandons us, but we him. The choice is up to us and, if we are to be free, he must recognise our choice to separate from him.

In the final words in the reading, Timothy is told to tell the people to “stop disputing about mere words”. Paul’s warning seems to be directed at those who are being caught up in the ideas of Gnosticism. Two leaders of this heresy, Hymenaeus (see 1 Tit 1:20) and Philetus, denied the bodily resurrection and probably asserted that there is only a spiritual resurrection (similar to the error mentioned in 1 Cor 15:12-19). Gnosticism interpreted the resurrection allegorically or symbolically but not as a reality. Paul told the Corinthians that if Christ was not truly risen, our whole faith in him was in vain (1 Cor 15:14).

In a final piece of advice, Timothy is told that all that matters in our lives is that we try to make ourselves deserving of God’s approval and we do that by consistently preaching and living the truth. It is a teaching we need to hear and implement in our own lives too.

Mark 12:28-34

Not all the Pharisees and Scribes were hostile to Jesus. We have Nicodemus as one very good example. And here today we have a scribe who approaches Jesus with no apparently hostile motive. He had seen how well Jesus had dealt with the challenges put to him by various groups. He now comes to ask a question which was much debated among scholars.

There were more than 600 commandments in the Jewish Law and it was often asked which of these had priority over the others. Unusual for him, Jesus immediately answers the man’s question. Was this because, unlike on other occasions, it was asked with politeness and respect and was a genuine request for an opinion?

In answering the question Jesus does not give just one commandment but two:

- Love your God with your whole heart and soul

- Love your neighbour as yourself.

Both answers are taken from the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18 respectively) and so satisfy his questioner’s request. However, as we read through the New Testament and especially the words of Jesus in the Gospel, we know that Jesus gives his own twist to these two commandments.

First, in answering a question about which is the most important commandment, he gives two commandments which, in his view, are quite inseparable; one cannot be kept without the other. We cannot say we love God and then refuse to love our neighbour. He will make two other refinements. He will extend the meaning of ‘neighbour’ to include every single person and not just the people of one’s own race, religion or family (cf . Luke 10:30-37).

And he will set as the standard of love not just the love we are able to show but the depth of love which he will show by dying for us (John 15:13) .

The scribe is very pleased with the answer that Jesus gives and expresses full agreement. “In that case,” Jesus replies, “you are not far from the kingdom of God.” That is to say, the scribe is very close to having the spirit of the Gospel and to the following of Jesus. He still has to make the crucial step of committing himself to follow Jesus and become actively involved in the work of the Kingdom.

Whether he took that step or not we will never know. However, we can make our choice to start today or renew our commitment to keep this double commandment and to reflect on how well we put them together.

Week 09 | Friday

2 Tim 3:10-17

Today Paul continues to urge Timothy to make Paul’s teaching and behaviour the model of Timothy’s own life.

Paul had very clear shortcomings, of which he was well aware, but he knew also that in his devotion to the following of Jesus he was second to none. In fact, it is because of his weaknesses that the power of Jesus shines so strongly through him. “For whenever I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). And he was passionately bound by his love for Jesus: “I live, no it is not I, but Christ lives in me.”

So now Timothy is invited to remember Paul’s fidelity and patience and spirit of endurance as he passed through so many persecutions and sufferings. Paul mentions the three Galatian towns of Antioch, Iconium and Lystra. Paul had visited them on his first and second missionary journeys and, as Timothy was from Lystra, he would have first-hand knowledge of Paul’s sufferings in that region. Yet, God had delivered Paul from all the threats and hardships he had encountered there.

Paul then enunciates a principle which occurs regularly in the New Testament and which has been a fact of life in the Church at all times: “Anyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus can expect to be persecuted.” We find similar warnings in the Gospel (”You will be hated by all because of my Name” - Matt 10:22). It was precisely in the places mentioned above that Paul had encouraged the Christians there: “It is through many persecutions that we must enter the Kingdom of God (Acts 14:22).

St Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), put it slightly differently when he said he hoped that his men would always experience some persecution. It was a sure sign they were doing their job. We should not be surprised, then, at attacks or ridicule on our Christian churches.

For there will always be, as Paul says, “evil people and charlatans” for whom the message of the Gospel is anathema and a threat. They will do what they can to destroy it and its messengers. But as long as the Gospel of Truth and Love is proclaimed it cannot fail no matter what is thrown against it.

And Timothy is urged to remain faithful to all that he learned and believed from his teachers, who include Paul as well as Timothy’s mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois (whose names are given at the beginning of the letter). They had taught him the word of God from his earliest years. A Jewish boy formally began to study the Scriptures when he was five years old. (Timothy, we know, was born of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother and would have been seen by Jews as one of them. Because of that, Paul had had him circumcised to make him more acceptable to fellow-Jews.)

Those Scriptures, that word of God, is, as Paul remarks, “the source of the wisdom which through faith in Jesus Christ leads to salvation”. Wisdom is not knowledge or information; it is a deep insight into the realities of our world and an ability to see how all things relate to each other. The particular wisdom here is that which comes through our commitment to the vision of life that Jesus and the Gospel give.

“All scripture is inspired.” Paul affirms God’s active involvement in the writing of Scripture, an involvement so powerful and pervasive that what is written is the infallible and authoritative word of God. At this time, the primary reference here must be to what we call the Old Testament as some of the New Testament books had not yet even been written. However, by the time of the later books e.g. 1 Timothy and 2 Peter, some of the New Testament books and other written material which later would become part of the canon were being considered as being on the same level as the Old Testament books. (At the same time, one feels that Paul would be very surprised to know that some of the letters he wrote, apparently in some haste at times, would be seen as God’s revealed word to us!)

An understanding of the Scriptures then is an essential source for “teaching, refutation, correction and training in right living”. Armed with this understanding, all those who “belong to God” will be competent and ready and able for every good work. For it is through the word of God in Scripture that we become “fully competent and equipped for every good work”.

The Scripture contains a wisdom which should guide all our Christian lives and it is regrettable that so many Catholics (as opposed to many Protestants) are far less familiar than they should be with the God’s Word in both Old and New Testaments. It was St Jerome who said that ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

It is amazing at times to hear people, who hardly ever open a Bible, pontificate about Jesus and the nature of Christianity. If we are among those who have to admit that much of the Bible is a closed book to us, let us resolve today to make ourselves more familiar with it.

We will find there an inexhaustible source of inspiration for our lives. Those with experience will tell you that, no matter how many times they read Bible passages, there is still more insight to be gained. It is not like an Agatha Christie novel that can be tossed aside once it is finished. “Oh, I read that.” It is more like a great piece of classical music that can be listened to again and again and which is ever open to new interpretations while remaining faithful to the original.

Mark 12:35-37

In the face of the confrontations he has been experiencing Jesus now lays claim to his true identity. It had long been the belief among the Jews that the Messiah would be a

descendant of the family of David. (On the other hand, the Samaritans saw the Messiah coming through the prophetic line, cf. John 4.)

Jesus, we know from the genealogies the Gospel gives us, was of the family of David. But today he affirms he is more than just a descendant of David. He is in fact David’s Lord. Jesus quotes from Psalm 110 and we need to remember that David was

believed to be the author of all the psalms, themselves words inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In Ps 110 David says:

“The Lord [God] said to my Lord [the Messiah]:

Sit at my right hand and I will put your enemies under your feet.”

Jesus, then, is saying two things to his opponents:

Jesus, the descendant, is the Lord of his ancestor, King David, and he is the Messiah-King who will sit at the right hand of God. He is then also the Lord of those who are challenging him.

God promises that he will crush all the enemies of the Messiah-King.

The argument used in this reading could hardly be used today, as we have a better understanding of the authorship of the psalms than people had in Jesus’ time.

Nevertheless, there are many other elements in the Christian Testament which lead us to the same conclusion: Jesus is Lord of all.

Does my life give testimony to that belief?

Week 09 | Saturday

2 Tim 4:1-8

Today we have our last reading from 2 Timothy. It is in two parts. The first part consists of an exhortation by Paul to Timothy to be unwavering in his work of evangelising and preaching.

Paul gives this urging with great solemnity “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is coming to judge the living and the dead”. He is also keenly aware of the twin facts of Christ’s return and the coming establishment of God’s kingdom in its fullest expression. After all, the eternal lives of his listeners will be depending on the commitment Timothy gives to his work.

So Timothy is charged to preach the Word through thick and thin, whether “convenient or inconvenient - correcting, reproving, appealing”, but “never losing patience”.

This is necessary because there will come a time when people will tire of solid teaching and will go chasing after all kinds of novelties. They “will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears”. Ears that want to be “scratched” by words which are in keeping with their evil desires. Instead of standing by their faith in Christ, they chase after fables and fairy tales.

What was true in Paul’s time is just as true today. In spite of the spiritual wealth and wisdom that we have in our Christian tradition, we have so many, including Catholics, dabbling in elements of the so-called “New Age”, which include distorted forms of Buddhism and Hinduism and Yoga and… People move from one titillating excitement to another. There is no end.

However, some of this, we Christians must admit, is because of our own weaknesses and remissness in communicating our message. The Christianity that many reject is frequently a serious distortion of the original message, because it is all they have ever heard and many more have not even heard the message in any form. It can lose all meaning in face of the bombardment of new ideas which pour out from all kinds of sources.

In all such situations, Timothy is urged to ‘keep his cool’. There is a need to “put up with hardship, perform your work as an evangelist, carry out your ministry” of service to the Gospel Way. That is what we all have to do. But to do so effectively, we must be, as we saw in yesterday’s reading, deeply inserted into the Word of God in the Scriptures.

In the second part, Paul himself can look back on his own record as an evangeliser with a certain amount of satisfaction. “For my part I am already being poured out like a libation.” It was the custom both among Jews and other religious believers to pour libations of wine, water or oil over the victims to be sacrificed. Paul views his approaching death as the pouring out of his life as an offering to Christ. Earlier, he had written to the Christians at Philippi: “Even if I am being poured out as a libation over the sacrifice and the offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you” (Phil 2:17). He knows his departure, that is, his leaving this life, is not far away. Now in prison and at the end of his life, Paul sees himself being poured out as a total offering to God. He has given his all and is holding nothing back.

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” Paul looks back over 30 years of labour as an apostle (c.AD 36-66). Like an athlete who had engaged successfully in a contest (”fought the good fight”), he had “finished the race” and had “kept the faith”, i.e., had carefully adhered to the teaching of the Gospel.

Like a runner in a race, he now deserves the garland of victory with which he is confident that the Lord will crown him when the Lord, whom he so passionately loves, comes again in judgement. He could be referring to the winner of a race or he could be referring to (1) a crown given as a reward for a righteous life, (2) a crown consisting of righteousness or (3) a crown given righteously (justly) by the righteous Judge.

Can I make the same boast as Paul? Almost certainly not. But there is still time. Let me start today.

Mark 12:38-44

We come today to the end of our readings from Mark’s gospel. We stop just on the threshold of prophecies about the end of Jerusalem and the final coming of Jesus and the story of his passion and resurrection.

There are two related passages today serving as entry points for this last phase of Jesus’ life and mission among us.

First, Jesus hits out at some of the scribes, the expert interpreters of the law. As such, they feel that they are expected to be perfect models of that law down to its smallest details. Jesus says they go around in long, flowing robes (the working poor could not afford to dress like that); they expect to be “greeted obsequiously” in the street and to be given the best places in the synagogue and at banquets. (Such behaviour, we have to confess, is not unknown among Christian clergy and other religious leaders.)

At the same time, Jesus says, these leaders were rapacious hypocrites. They did not hesitate to “swallow the property of widows” while, at the same time, making a show of lengthy prayers. They were the opposite of everything that Jesus was proposing as the way to love and serve God. They emphasised the external appearance rather than the inner spirit; they were concerned about being served rather than serving others; they thought only of what they could get through their privileged position rather than what they could share, especially with those in need.

Jesus warns that, precisely because of their greater knowledge of the law, their responsibilities in not keeping its real spirit will be all the greater. To whom more is given more is expected.

The mention of widows leads on to the second part of the reading. Jesus was sitting facing the treasury of the Temple and watching the people putting in their offerings. A poor widow - and widows were, almost by definition, poor and, because they could no longer produce children, regarded practically as non-persons, rejected by their husband’s family. They were often reduced to poverty. Yet, it is one of these who approaches the treasury box and drops in two coins of negligible value.

Jesus draws the attention of his disciples who were with him and points out that the poor woman had put in more than all the others combined. They were contributing what they could easily spare while she put in her whole livelihood. It was an act of total trust in God’s providence and care for her.

It has been pointed out that she put in two coins. In other words, given her situation, she would have been more than justified in putting in just one. Compare her to the rich man who could not part with his wealth to follow Jesus.

It has also been pointed out that this anonymous woman is, in a way, a symbol of Jesus himself. He also will “empty himself”, give away everything, including his life, out of love for his Father and for us. It seems no accident that the story is placed just here as Jesus enters on his final days.

Today’s two incidents both provide matter for us to reflect on. Do we wear our Christianity just on our sleeve? Do we tend to assert our “rights” over others and expect due deference from them e.g. in our working place? How much of what we have are we willing to share with others? “Teach us, Lord, to be generous.”

Week 10 | Monday

1 Kgs 17:1-6

“Today we begin reading the story of the dramatic man of God, Elijah (9th century BC). The king of the northern kingdom, Ahab, married the pagan, Jezebel. She introduced pagan cults. Elijah, chosen by God to battle paganism, announces a lengthy drought as God’s punishment.” (Vatican II Missal)

For the next three weeks we are returning to the Books of Kings. We will be reading from both the First and Second Books. The readings centre mainly on the great prophet Elijah and also on his successor, Elisha. Also featuring prominently will be King Ahab and his notorious wife, Jezebel.

What is told here probably belongs to the earlier life of the prophet and the author takes up the story where it fits into his overall narrative. It is the description of a serious drought which is seen as a punishment for the introduction into Israel of the worship of Baal. We are in the reign of King Ahab, who had married Jezebel, a woman from Sidon, and it was through her influence that the king introduced the worship of Baal. He even built a temple to Baal in Samaria.

All we are told of Elijah’s origins is that he came from Tishbe in Gilead. Gilead was a region in the northern area on the east side of the Jordan. The exact location of Tishbe is not now known. He was being sent by God to oppose vigorously, by word and action, both Baal worship and those engaged in it.

Elijah begins by proclaiming solemnly to King Ahab in the name of the Lord that, until God declares otherwise, there will be a drought in Israel. The reason is clear: it is a punishment for the idolatry of God’s people.

The proclamation is made in the name of “the God of Israel, before whom I stand”. This is a technical phrase which indicates someone who stands in the service of a king. Kings and priests were specially anointed to serve as God’s official representatives and spokespersons with the responsibility to see that their people remained faithful to the covenant and in the service of God. Since the days of Jeroboam the northern kingdom had not had such a priest, and its kings had all been unfaithful.

Now in the great religious crisis brought on by Ahab’s promotion of Baal worship, the Lord sent Elijah (and after him Elisha) to serve as his representative (instead of a king and priests), much as Moses had done long ago. In fact, the author of Kings highlights many similarities between the ministries of Elijah and Moses.

“During these years there shall be no dew or rain except at my word,” the Lord says to Elisha. This form of punishment is significant because, although Baal was seen as a god of fertility and lord of the rain clouds on which that fertility depended, he was powerless against Yahweh’s decision to withhold all rain and moisture. This will be dramatically emphasised and proved in the scene which brings the drought to an end.

Symbolically, too, Elijah is told to go away from God’s land and hide on the east side of the Jordan. By this gesture God indicates that he is withdrawing from his people, leaving them isolated from his word (which comes through the prophet) and from his blessings. The absence of the prophet only confirms God’s separation from his people. Such symbolic acts by prophets are common in the Old Testament. The location of the wadi Kerith is not certain. Possibly it was a gorge formed by one of the northern tributaries to the Yarmuk River.

At the same time, while God’s people in the promised land go thirsty and hungry during the drought that afflicts them, Elijah will drink from the stream in the oasis and, miraculously, ravens will bring him bread in the morning and meat in the evening. The Lord’s faithful servant was miraculously sustained on the other side of the Jordan (like Israel in the desert in the time of Moses) while Israel in the promised land was going hungry - another clear message to Israel of its vain reliance on Baal.

The fact that Elijah was sustained in a miraculous way apart from living among his own people also demonstrated that the word of God was not dependent on the people, but the people were totally dependent on the word of God. It was not God who had gone back on his covenant promises to his people. It was they who had violated the covenant by turning their back on him and cultivating the idols of Baal.

Sometimes we think that God has abandoned us but, if we look more closely, we will find that it is we who have moved away from him. Our hunger, too, for the most part is a spiritual hunger. When we are close to him, we can find his presence and his love in every experience that we have.

Matthew 5:1-12: Sermon on the Mount

Today we begin reading from Matthew’s gospel and will continue to do so for several weeks to come. We begin with chapter 5 and the Sermon on the Mount.

In reading Matthew’s gospel we need to remember that it was directed primarily at a readership with a Jewish background and in this it differs greatly from Mark. One of Matthew’s aims is to present Jesus as the new Moses, transcending but not putting aside the law given to the Israelites by the first Moses. And, as the law of Moses is contained in what we call the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, so the law or teaching of Jesus is presented uniquely in this gospel by five long discourses.

The first of these is the Sermon on the Mount and it consists mainly of the qualities which are expected of a follower of the new Law and the new Moses, Jesus.

It begins with what we call the Eight Beatitudes. It could be said that these have been greatly under-rated in the life of the Christian churches, Catholic and otherwise. Most people tend to see the centre of Christian living in the Ten Commandments and yet they really belong to the Hebrew Testament, they are part of that Law which the coming of Jesus did not nullify but transcended. They are, of course, still valid as moral guidelines but, in many ways, they fall far short of what is presented by Jesus in the Beatitudes.

It would seem, in fact, that Matthew is presenting the Beatitudes as taking over the role of the Commandments and this is indicated by the prominent place they have in forming the opening of the first discourse. They are, as it were, a manifesto of Jesus’ message and his call to see the world in his way. They express the necessary attitudes of those who belong to the Kingdom. Those who have these attitudes already have entered that Kingdom.

Perhaps a few words about the ‘Kingdom’ are in order. In many ways, Matthew’s gospel can be called ‘a Gospel of the Kingdom’. The phrase that Matthew consistently uses, however, is ‘Kingdom of heaven’. For many people this can be misleading because it causes them to think that Jesus is talking about the next life, our life in ‘heaven’. So that the Beatitudes are interpreted as conditions to be observed by those who want to go to heaven after they die.

This, I believe, would be a serious misreading of the text. Matthew uses the term ‘kingdom of heaven’ because, mindful of the Jewish background of his readers, he does not like to mention the name of God directly. He uses other circumlocutions in the course of his gospel to get around using God’s name. As when he has Jesus say, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” By using the passive in the second half of the statement, he avoids mentioning the Doer, God. The other gospels have no hesitation in talking about the ‘Kingdom of God’ and that is what Matthew also means.

What is this kingdom? It is not a place. The Greek word basileia (basileia) is an abstract word which means ‘kingship’ or ‘reign’ rather than ‘kingdom’, which suggests a territory. ‘Kingship’ or ‘reign’ on the contrary suggests power. To belong to the Kingdom or Kingship of God, then, is to put oneself fully, consciously and deliberately under the power of God, to experience that power and be empowered by it. That power is above all the power of agape-love.

When we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Your Kingdom come”, we are not talking about a future life after death but praying that people everywhere put themselves under the loving power of God. That is made clear by the petition immediately following: “Your will be done on earth…” Our first call as Christians is to belong to, to enter that Kingdom and not just to be a member of the Church.

The Church is, in so far as it is faithful to the call of Christ, part of the Kingdom but the Kingdom extends far beyond the membership of the Church. The Church is, as it were, the sacrament or visible sign of the Kingdom. As examples, I would suggest that people like Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are people who are very much full of the spirit of the Kingdom, more so, I dare to say, than many of us who are baptised. It is significant, I think, that Gandhi was particularly fond of the Beatitudes and identified with them.

It is time now to look at today’s text.

It begins with Jesus seeing the crowds and going up a hill. Moses, too, delivered God’s law from an elevated place, Mount Sinai. In neither case can we identify the actually mountain or hill, although traditionally, of course, a hill in Palestine has been called the Mount of the Beatitudes.

In the traditional way of a teacher, Jesus sits down to teach. We see him doing the same in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:20). He is joined by his disciples and it is not clear whether they were the primary object of his teaching or that the crowds were also included. The teaching, of course, is directed to followers and, in particular, to those reading the gospel.

Jesus begins the discourse with the wonderful words of the Beatitudes. There are eight of them, each one beginning with the words, “Happy are those…” ‘Happy’ is a translation of the Greek adjective makarios (makarios) which includes not only the idea of happiness but also of good fortune, of being specially blessed. So we can translate it as “Blessed indeed are those…” or “Fortunate indeed are those…”

It is important to realise that being a follower of Christ is intended to be a source of deep happiness and a realisation that one is truly fortunate to have discovered this vision of life.

At a first reading, the Beatitudes seem to fly in the face of commonly accepted ideals of the good life. It takes a deeper reading to see their inner truth.

How happy are the poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The Gospel in general shows great concern for the poor, that is, all those people who are deprived of what they rightfully need to lead a life of decent dignity. Why should the poor be particularly blessed? As people living in deprivation, obviously they are not. But in terms of the Kingdom they are blessed because in the Kingdom, where love, compassion and justice prevail there is no place for such inequality. The Kingdom is an environment of interlocking relationships where people take care of each other and where the resources of all are shared according to the needs of all. The Kingdom is a place of blessings and happiness for the poor because it spells the end of their poverty. The poor are the “little ones” that Jesus speaks about as qualification for entering the Kingdom. They are the “last” who will be first. And, while ‘poverty’ in a wider sense can be applied to all, Jesus is thinking especially of the material simplicity that he expects from his disciples, a poverty which he himself experienced with “nowhere to lay his head”. Wealth can only mean depriving the needy of what they should have.

Matthew is unique in using the term ‘poor in spirit’. It is a significant addition. While the Gospel in speaking of the poor is mainly and rightly concerned with the materially poor, Matthew’s phrase can broaden the concept. Because, in reality, there are many other ways in which people can be deprived and regarded as poor. We are more sensitive to this in our own day with our deeper insights into psychological and sociological factors. People can, although materially well off, be literally poor in spirit. That is, they have little spirit, very little happiness, lives of full of stress and anxiety and anger and resentment. These are all the result of our highly competitive, each-person-for-himself society which is everything that the Kingdom is not. Taken in that sense, the Beatitude applies to a very large number of people.

Happy the gentle; they shall have the earth for their heritage.

The word ‘gentle’ is variously translated as ‘meek’, ‘lowly’, ‘humble’. The Greek word comes from the noun prautes (prauths). The beatitude is reminiscent of a phrase in Psalm 37: “The humble shall have the land for their own to enjoy untroubled peace.”

Probably ‘gentle’ is the better rendering. It suggests someone who is kind and caring and not particularly assertive and dominating. In our rough and tumble society such people normally get pushed aside and can thus be classed among the ‘lowly’ and the ‘humble’. But they are not necessarily ‘meek’, which suggests people who allow themselves to be trampled on. Rather they belong to those who subscribe to active non-violence. That is, they will never resort to any form of violent behaviour to achieve their goals but they are active and pro-active, not passive - or meek. We think of people like Martin Luther King and Dorothy Day. To be ‘gentle’ in this sense requires a great inner strength and, of course, in the Kingdom there is a very desirable need for such people. It is there that they will come into their own.

In some texts this Beatitude is interchanged with the following and sometimes it is presented as an addition to the first about the “poor in spirit” where “gentle” is understood as “lowly” cf. Ps 37:11). In this case there would only be seven Beatitudes, a more biblical number.

Happy those who mourn; they shall be comforted.

Mourning and happiness would seem to be contradictory to each other. It does not say what the mourning might be about. It could be the death of a family member or a loved one. But it could be something quite different altogether.

Again we have to see the beatitude in the context of the Kingdom. There, those who mourn - for whatever reason - can be sure of experiencing the comfort and support of their brothers and sisters. That is something that they cannot be always sure of in a world where people are too busy taking care of their own immediate interests. Mourning by itself is never a happy experience but it can become a blessing when surrounded by the right people as their love and concern are poured out.

Happy those who hunger and thirst for what is right; they shall be satisfied.

‘What is right’, ‘what is just’. Justice is done when each person is accorded what belongs to them. A just world is a world of right relationships; in the Kingdom that is realised. And so, those who truly hunger and thirst to see justice done in our world for every single person will see their dreams and hopes come to fruition.

It is a hunger and thirst which everyone of us should pray to have. Only when we all have that hunger and thirst will justice be achieved and the Kingdom become a reality. We have made progress over the years but we still have a long, long way to go.

Happy the merciful; they shall have mercy shown them.

Mercy, compassion, the ability to forgive fully. The Kingdom is a world full of mercy and forgiveness. And just as we will be ready to forgive others we will find that others will be ready to forgive us when we fail in our responsibilities towards others. In the Lord’s Prayer, which is a prayer of the Kingdom, this is what we ask for: “Forgive us our sins because we forgive the sins of those who have offended us.” In fact, it is impossible for those who belong to the Kingdom to be offended and forgiveness comes easily to them.

That does not mean, of course, that we condone every wrong. The question of justice always remains. But condemning wrong does not exclude healing wounds caused by the hurt which wrongdoing causes.

And mercy understood as compassion is a particularly desirable quality in a Kingdom person. Such a person not only experiences pity for those who suffer but knows how to enter into and empathise with what they are going through. This was a quality found again and again in Jesus himself.

Happy the pure in heart; they shall see God.

‘Pure’ here is not referring primarily to sexual purity. The pure in heart are those whose vision is totally free of any distortion or prejudice. They see things exactly as they are. As a result, they have little difficulty in recognising the presence and the action of God in the people and the environment around them.

This purity of heart, this ability to be able to see with perfect clarity is truly a gift. It requires a high level of integrity on our part; but the rewards are enormous.

Happy the peacemakers; they shall be called children of God.

Surely one of the most beautiful of the beatitudes and the one we would all love to have applied to ourselves. In a world so full of divisions and conflicts of all kinds the role of the peacemaker is so much needed. It is something we can all do, starting in our own homes, then in our working places and the wider society. It is something we can do as individuals and in groups, as parishes and churches.

And, how true that, as peacemakers, we can be called ‘children of God’! The Letter to the Ephesians speaks beautifully of Jesus as making peace, breaking down walls between people, by his death on the cross (Eph 2:14ff).

Finally, Happy are those who are persecuted in the cause of right; theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Most people would hardly regard being persecuted, which could involve prison, torture and death, as a source of happiness. But it is not the persecution that triggers the happiness but the reason why it is willingly undergone.

Right from the beginnings of the Church, as described in the Acts of the Apostles, Christians rejoiced to be found worthy to suffer with and like their Lord in the proclamation of his message and way of life. That way of life was so precious to them, such a source of meaning, that they were more than willing to give their lives to defend it.

In prison, they sang songs and prayed as later the civil rights leaders (most of them committed Christians) in the United States would sing “We shall overcome” as they rode the paddy wagons to jail. It is a much more painful experience to compromise with our deepest convictions in order to avoid criticism or physical suffering. They are indeed, as Jesus says, the successors to the great prophets of the Hebrew Testament.

Happy are those who with integrity can stand by their convictions whatever the cost.

Some people have seen in these Beatitudes a portrait of Jesus himself and certainly they should be the portrait of every Christian and of every Kingdom person. They are the charter people everywhere (and not just Christians) are called to follow. They go far beyond what is demanded of in the Ten Commandments. The Commandments are not so difficult to follow and, in so far as several of them are expressed in the negative (‘Thou shalt not…’), they can be observed by doing nothing! There is no way, however, that people can ever say they observe any Beatitude to the fullest. They always call us to a further and higher level.

Week 10 | Tuesday

1 Kgs 17:7-16 - Elijah and the widow

The effects of the drought now even reach Elijah as the stream which provided him with water dries up. But it is not a sign of God withdrawing his providence; rather it is a sign that a new stage in the story is about to unfold.

God tells Elijah now to go to Zarephath of Sidon, a town on the Mediterranean coast between the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon (the only Gentile places we are told that Jesus visited during his public life). In effect, Elijah is being told to go to the territory ruled over by Jezebel’s father and thus to the very centre from which the worship of Baal had originated. Elijah must have found it a strange command but he put his trust in the Lord and went. This whole story is about trust in God’s providence and care.

Elijah receives a promise that he will be looked after there not now by birds but by a poor widow, herself on the point of starvation. Moreover, she is a Gentile, in Jewish eyes a pagan. Just one more example of how God’s people were sustained by people they despised and avoided. Elijah, as the bearer of God’s word, was now to be sustained by human hands, but they were the hands of a poor widow facing starvation. She was, moreover, from outside the circle of God’s own people. She was from the pagan nation that at that time (much like Egypt earlier and Babylon later) represented the forces arrayed against God’s people.

Once again, showing his deep trust in God’s care of him, Elijah goes off and, as promised, finds the widow gathering sticks. He asks for a little water to drink and she goes off to get some for him. However, as she is leaving, Elijah also asks for a little bread to eat. Here she demurs.

“As surely as the Lord your God lives,” she began. Her oath in the name of the Lord was either in deference to Elijah the Israelite or even a recognition of Elijah’s God. She told him that she had only a very small amount of flour in her house and a little oil. She was now gathering firewood to prepare a final meal for herself and her son. After that, with nothing more to eat, they were prepared to face death.

“Do not be afraid,” said Elijah - a phrase that comes up again and again in both the Old and New Testaments and often used by Jesus himself. He tells her to go and make the meal for her son but first to prepare a small cake for him. The widow is asked to give all she has to sustain the bearer of the word of God. The demand to give her all is in essence the demand of the covenant that Israel had broken.

Elijah then cites to her a promise from the Lord: she will not want for flour or oil until the day the rains return. In a marvellous act of trust she agrees. She reminds one of the widow in the Gospel who donated all she had to the Temple treasury. This Gentile woman’s trust is also in strong contrast to the Israelites who had bound themselves by covenant to unconditional and total service of their Lord but had reneged on it so often and were doing so again.

The truth of Elijah’s promise was soon confirmed for the widow. For the jar of meal and jug of oil were never again empty for one whole year. By her act of faith the woman received the promised blessing, while Israel had forsaken the covenant and followed Baal and Asherah in search of prosperity. Now in the midst of a pagan kingdom a widow realises that the trustful obedience to the word of God is the way that leads to life.

God miraculously provided for this non-Israelite who, in an act of faith in the Lord’s word, had laid her life on the line. He gave her “manna” from heaven even while he was withholding food from his unfaithful people in the promised land.

The whole story is a teaching about trusting in God’s care for us. Later, in his home town of Nazareth, Jesus will use the example of this Gentile woman as well as the cure by Elisha of Naaman the leper from Syria as examples of Gentiles having more faith than God’s own people. Jesus was not able to heal many in Nazareth because of their refusal to see in him anyone but one of their neighbours.

This story reminds us too that the secret of life is for everyone to share generously of what they have. When that happens, no one is in want. When everyone gives, everyone gets.

Matthew 5:13-16

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

We may be totally filled with the spirit of the Beatitudes but it will not do very much good unless their effects are clearly seen in our lives. To be a Christian it is not enough to be good; we must be seen to be so. It is not enough to ‘have a spirituality’ that fills us with a feeling of peace and tranquillity. The spirituality of the Gospel is essentially outreaching. We have not only to be disciples of Christ but also need to proclaim him.

So Jesus, immediately following the Beatitudes, presents us with a number of images expressing this. “You are the salt of the earth.” Salt is an essential ingredient in almost all cooked food (even sweet food) to provide taste. We all know what it is like to have soup that contains no salt; we know how much part salt plays in flavouring mass-produced fast foods.

We are to be like salt; we are to give taste, zest to our environment. We do that through the specific outlook on life which we have and which we invite others to share. At their best, Christians have been very effective in doing this and have had a great impact on the values of many societies and in bringing about great changes.

To be tasteless salt is to be next to useless. Salt that has lost its taste is only fit to be thrown out. At the same time, in the West we sometimes, too, put some salt on the side of our plate. That salt, however, tasty it may be is still not doing any good unless it is put into the food. And this is an interesting feature of salt, namely, that it blends completely with food and disappears. It cannot be seen, but it can be tasted.

That reminds us that we as Christians, if we are to have the effect of giving taste, must be totally inserted in our societies. We have to resist any temptation, as Christians, to withdraw and separate ourselves from the world. It is a temptation we can easily fall into and there are many places in our cities where the Church is absent nowadays. There is no salt there. In our commercial districts, in our industrial areas, in our entertainment and media centres, where is the visible Christian presence?

Other images used by Jesus today include being the “light of the world” or being a city built on top of a hill. There is no way it can be hidden; it sticks out like a sore thumb. And what is the point of lighting a candle and then covering it over with a tub? You light a candle to give light so that people can see their way and will not fall. To be baptised and to go into virtual hiding is like lighting and then covering up a candle.

Finally, Jesus gives us the reason for making ourselves so visible. It is so that people may see our good works? In order that we can bask in their admiration and wonder? No, but so that they will be led through us to the God who made them, who loves them and wants to lead them to himself.

It is for us today to reflect on how visible our Christian faith is to others both as individuals, as families, as members of a Christian group, as parishioners, as a diocese.

Are there people or places in our area where a Christian witness is for all intents and purposes absent. Can we do anything about that?

Week 10 | Wednesday

1 Kgs 18:20-39

The sacrifice on Carmel

Today we have the dramatic challenge that Elijah made to the worshippers of Baal and to his own idolatrous fellow-Israelites. It will give clinching proof of who the true God is and this will finally be confirmed by the ending of the drought (tomorrow’s reading).

The scene is on Mount Carmel, a mountain in northern Palestine near the Mediterranean coast. King Ahab, in conformity with a request from Elijah, has ordered all the Israelites to gather there together with the 450 prophets of Baal.

Elijah throws down the challenge to his people by asking them how much longer they are going to continue hopping from one leg to the other, alternating between their worship of God and of Baal and of trying to have the best of both worlds. Elijah is speaking sarcastically. In her religious ambivalence between her worship of Yahweh and of Baal, Israel is but engaging in a wild and futile religious “dance”. Elijah tells them to make up their minds and choose one or the other; they cannot follow two antagonistic ways of worship. He draws a sharp contrast between the worship of the Lord and that of Baal and puts out of their minds that both deities can be worshipped in some combined rituals.

Elijah now throws down the challenge - himself against the 450 priests of Baal. He is the only true prophet in Israel to stand boldly and publicly against the king and the prophets of Baal. (In fact, we are told earlier in the book that Elijah was on the run. Anyone who knew where he was hiding would be executed.)

The elements of the challenge are straightforward. The 450 priests of Baal will prepare an altar with a dismembered bull and Elijah will do the same. Each side will call on the name of their divinity and the one who answers by consuming the animal with fire is the true God. To this all agree.

It is not merely a matter of deciding whether Yahweh or Baal is lord of the mountain or which is the stronger, but simply which is the one, true God. Both the Lord and Baal were said to ride the thunderstorm as their divine chariot (see Ps 104:3 - “You make the clouds your chariot; you travel on the wings of the wind.”); thunder was their voice (see Ps 18:14 - “The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High gave forth his voice.”). Elijah’s challenge is direct. His own statement, his later prayer and the people’s acclamation at the end of the reading make it clear: the uniqueness of the God of Israel is at stake.

Because of their greater numbers, Elijah told the priests of Baal to proceed first. They set up their bull on the altar and from morning to midday they called on Baal to send down fire while they danced from leg to leg (echoing the jibe against the Israelites “hobbling” between God and Baal). The ecstatic cultic dance was part of the pagan ritual intended to arouse the deity to perform some desired action. But nothing happened.

Elijah begins to mock them satirically. “Cry louder because he is a god! So maybe he is contemplating, is resting, or off on a journey. He might even be asleep.” In his mocking, Elijah also reveals he is aware of the myths surrounding Baal.

The priests shout even louder and, as is common in such religions, become wild and ecstatic, slashing themselves with knives and pouring blood. Self-inflicted wounds causing blood to flow were symbolic of self-sacrifice as an extreme method of arousing the deity to action but such mutilation of the body was strictly forbidden in the Mosaic law. As the deadline of noon passed they continued with their ecstatic and trancelike raving in which their ritual reached its climax at the time of the evening sacrifice. But the god was silent. “No one answered; no one was listening.” Their efforts had come to nothing; their god could do nothing to help them.

It is now Elijah’s turn. He calls on the people to gather round him. Using twelve stones to represent the 12 tribes of Israel he rebuilds the altar. It is possible it had originally been built by the people of the northern tribes after the division of the kingdom (Jerusalem and the Temple were in the southern kingdom) but had been destroyed by the agents of Jezebel and the worshippers of Baal. The 12 stones represented all the tribes of Israel as God’s one people despite the political division into two kingdoms. What is about to happen concerns the whole people and not just the 10 northern tribes. The Lord had said to the people of all the tribes: “Your name shall be Israel.”

Around the altar Elijah had a large trench dug large enough to hold two measures of grain. Wood was placed on top of the altar and the dismembered bull on top of that. He then gave instructions for four jars of water to be poured over the sacrificial victim and over the wood. This was done three times altogether. By drenching the whole structure with water, Elijah was making the subsequent happening all the more convincing.

Then Elijah prays. His prayer is in marked contrast to the frenzied actions of the Baal priests. He calls simply on the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, thus recalling the great covenants that had been made between God and his people. In plain language he calls on God to answer his prayer so that people will know not who is the more powerful but who is the one and only God. And he appeals to Israel to remember all that the Lord has done for her since the days of her forefathers.

The coming manifestation will demonstrate:

1, to the prophets of Baal and to Jezebel’s entourage of foreigners that there is no place for them in Israel where Yahweh is God; and

2, to the Israelites that Yahweh is the only God, the God who wins back wayward hearts.

In immediate response to Elijah’s prayer the Lord’s fire comes down on the altar, consumes the holocaust offering (sodden though it is with water) and totally evaporates the water in the surrounding trench. The people’s reaction is to fall down in awe and worship: “The Lord is God!” they keep repeating.

(The end of the story - not recorded in our reading - is that the priests of Baal were then seized and all of them executed by having their throats cut. Hopefully, we might think now of other less drastic ways of dealing with them.)

Life with our God is, in the long run, a simple and straightforward affair. There are people who try to make religion very complicated. For many, superstition and idolatry are not far away. The idols today, from which people expect great returns, are those of the consumer society, of money, fame, power and “success”. The god of Mammon has taken over the lives of many and many Christians, like the Israelites in the story, try to hop uncomfortably between the two. But Jesus said that we had to make a very clear choice - it has to be one or the other (cf. Matt 6:24). The God of the Gospel simply invites us to become closely united with him in prayer and love.

That is the God of Elijah and should be ours too.

Matthew 5:17-19

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

We have said that Matthew’s gospel is primarily directed at a readership with a Jewish background. It is clear that their Jewish background and traditions were things which it was not easy for Christian converts to give up. Both Paul and Matthew go out of their way to assure Jewish converts that Christianity is not a rejection of Judaism but its natural development. It is everything that Judaism is and more.

So, in today’s passage which continues the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus solemnly assures his readers, “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.” Jesus has not come not to terminate the Law but to bring it to a higher level. (In a rough simile, it is like the upgrading of a computer by e.g. increasing its memory. It is still the same computer doing the same things, only better and faster.) The vision of Jesus helps us to see the Law in a new light.

So Jesus says that the Law is still to be observed. Of course, we will see very clearly in the following days exactly what Jesus means. He is not saying that every single injunction of the Law (some of which seem very strange to us) has to be literally observed but rather that the spirit behind those injunctions is still in force. His words are meant to console but they are also a challenge, as we shall see. The New Law does not mean simply the addition of new elements. There is what we would call now a ‘paradigm shift’ to a Way which goes beyond laws to the Law of Love.

In our Church, too, we need to be ready to move forward creatively to new ways of understanding our faith and living it out. The traditions of the past are still valid but we must never get bogged down in them to the extent that we do not respond to the clear signs of the times. Tradition can be understood in two ways: either as a fundamental belief that has existed from the very beginning or simply a way of doing or understanding things which has been around for a long time.

When will the Church stop changing? we hear some people ask. The answer is, Hopefully never. The day we close ourselves to change is the day we die, as Paul warns us in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. To quote Cardinal Newman, To live is to change; to be perfect is to have changed often. He knew about change. He made radical changes in his own understanding of the Christian faith, changes which he saw as unavoidable although they involved great sacrifices on his part and led him from the Anglican to the Catholic Church.

Week 10 | Thursday

1 Kgs 18:41-46

Today’s reading follows immediately on yesterday’s dramatic account of the contest between Elijah and the priests of Baal. It completes the proof of Yahweh’s uniqueness and power over the impotent Baal.

God has answered Elijah’s prayer by raining fire on the sacrificial victims drenched in water. Now the rain itself comes and the drought is over. And it is clearly the work of Yahweh.

It is described in a lovely scene marvellous in its delicacy and the whole episode is magnificently expressed in music in Felix Mendelssohn’s oratorio “Elijah”.

First, Elijah tells King Ahab to go back to his palace to eat and drink. A fast had been in effect to prepare for the sacrifice, which we read about yesterday, and to hasten the coming of the rain. Already the sound of the rain can be heard by the prophet.

While Ahab went to eat, Elijah went to the summit of Mt Carmel and began to prostrate himself in prayer. His first prayer against the priests of Baal had been answered. Now he prayed for the drought, the punishment of God for the people’s idolatry, to be brought to an end.

He then tells his servant to look westwards out to sea. “There is nothing,” reports the boy. He is told to go back seven times and on the seventh time he says: “There is a cloud, small as a man’s hand, rising from the sea”, that is, from the west. (Mount Carmel looks down on the Mediterranean.) In the Scriptures the number seven is symbolic of completeness and wholeness. The number plays a significant role in both Matthew’s and John’s gospels.

Immediately the servant is told to warn the king. The king is to harness his chariot and get home before he is stopped by the heavy rain. Immediately, the sky grows dark and ominous and the rain begins to come down in torrents. Ahab, riding in his chariot, makes at once for Jezreel, which then served as an alternative capital for the kings of Israel (the Northern Kingdom). Elijah, given winged feet by God, is able to outrun the chariot and reaches the outskirts of Jezreel first.

The scene again is symbolic: Elijah, God’s prophet, runs ahead. He is followed by his king, Ahab, in his chariot, while the Lord himself riding the thunderclouds comes bringing the rain the people had been deprived of because of their sin. This dramatic scene, with the Lord’s prophet running before the king and the Lord himself racing behind him riding his mighty thundercloud chariot, served as a powerful appeal to Ahab to break once for all with the now discredited Baal and henceforth to rule as the servant of the Lord. In the whole story, it is Elijah who leads the way to God, while Ahab, who is supposed to be God’s representative for his people, lags behind.

Let us today thank God for the sun and rain, which, as Jesus reminds us in the Gospel, are the signs of his even-handed love for every single person. A love he urges us also to show. Let us, too, put aside all the false gods in whom we place so much trust. In my own case, I might try to identify which are the gods I tend to follow.

Matthew 5:20-26

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

What Jesus means by saying that he has not come to abolish the old Law but to transcend it is made clear by six examples that he gives of how a number of Old Testament sayings are to be understood by his followers. In fact, he says that if we wish to be his followers and do his work we must move forward to the deeper level of understanding he proposes.

“Unless your virtue goes deeper and greatly surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the Kingdom.” It is clear from what we see of the Scribes and Pharisees in the gospels that for them religious virtue consisted in the most exact external observance of every detail of Jewish Law. The more perfect the observance of the letter of the Law, the closer one was to God. Jesus challenged that understanding and it led to serious confrontations with the religious leadership. Of course, the way of the Scribes and Pharisees has its attractions. It is a much easier way to measure one’s obedience to God. And one finds the same among other religions today, including, for instance, Christians and Muslims. Among Christians (including Catholics) today, one finds that there are many who are very anxious to know whether a certain action “is a sin” or not. On the other hand, such an approach leads in many cases to scrupulosity and fear, finding sin even in minutiae. God becomes a menacing shadow ready to strike at the smallest wrongdoing.

Speaking of the Jewish law, the first example Jesus gives is of the commandment: “You must not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Jesus’ understanding of this commandment goes far beyond the actual killing of another person. He extends it even to anger and abusive language. And anger can often be totally locked inside and invisible to an outsider. “Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement, and whoever says to his brother ‘Raqa’ (empty-headed nitwit), will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says ‘You fool’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.” In other words, Jesus excludes any kind of violent behaviour towards a brother or sister, either in action, or word, or even thought.

He also links our interpersonal behaviour to our relationship to God. It is no good, then, piously bringing our offering to the altar in the temple and presenting it to God

while we are - through our own fault - in conflict with a brother or sister. We cannot separate our relationship with God and with that of a brother/sister. This will be spelt out in other parts of the Gospel. Before we make our offering, we must first be reconciled with our offended brother/sister and only then, after the injury has been healed, make our offering. Jesus also recommends early reconciliation if only to avoid greater troubles later on. It is not worth going to jail simply out of hatred or anger towards another.

All this is very relevant to us. Whenever we celebrate the Eucharist we should recall what Jesus says in this text and are invited to put it into practice. Before we make our offering of the bread and wine, we are invited, at the beginning of the Eucharist, to confess our sins to God and to the gathered community: “I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned…” How often do we really think about what we are saying at this time?

Again, before sharing with others in the Body and Blood of the Lord, we pray: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who offend us.” And we are also invited to make a sign of peace with all those around us. For how can we share in the Body and Blood of the Lord if we are at enmity with a brother or sister who is a member of that same Body? But again, so often this is often just an empty gesture, like a nod of the head, with very little real meaning and, for the most part, made to someone we do not even know. Let us put the meaning back into what can so easily degenerate into a meaningless ritual.

Week 10 | Friday

1 Kgs 19:9, 11-16

In today’s reading we have one of the most beautiful images to be found in the Old Testament.

When Jezebel heard of the slaughter of the priests of Baal (end of Wednesday’s reading), she vowed to submit Elijah to the same fate. Elijah then fled into the wilderness. He was ready to lie down and die but God still had work for him to do and gave him the food he needed to carry out his commission.

Our reading today opens with Elijah going to the mountain of Horeb, sheltering and hiding in a cave. Moses had done the same and had been crouching in the “hollow of the rock” when Yahweh appeared to him. It is here that God speaks to Elijah. “What are you doing here?” the Lord asks. Elijah replies that God’s people have deserted him and torn down their altars; Elijah is the only prophet left and his life is in danger.

It is then that he is told to go and stand on the mountain in the presence of his Lord. Traditionally the Lord is especially present on the tops of mountains. We remember Moses on Mount Sinai, the mountain where Jesus delivered his Sermon, and the mountain where Jesus in glory appeared to three of his disciples. We read, too, in the Old Testament how many centres of worship were put in high places.

On the mountain, Elijah is told to await the Lord passing by.

First, there was a mighty wind, strong enough to break rocks. But God was not in the wind.

Then there was an earthquake. But the Lord was not there either.

And, after the earthquake, there came a fire. But the Lord was not in the fire.

In ancient times, much more than in our own, the power of wind, earthquake and fire could fill people with terror and awe and as pale signs of God’s own power. With all our technology today we are still largely helpless when these elements rage out of control. The Asian tsunami a few years ago was a dramatic example but so are the earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes, cyclones, floods and droughts, lightning strikes…

On Mount Sinai, too, when Moses and the Israelites encountered Yahweh there were storms, earthquakes and lighting proclaiming the presence of the almighty Yahweh but, with Elijah on that day on the mountain, God was not in any of these. They were only the remote signs of his deeper presence.

There came a gentle breeze. And Elijah immediately recognised the presence of God. The whisper of a light breeze signifies that God is a spirit and that he converses intimately with his prophets. The image reminds us of the gentle breath or wind of the Spirit which, as Jesus told Nicodemus, blows where it will. It speaks most eloquently of God as spirit and of the way he penetrates quietly into the most intimate corners of our life. It is why it is so necessary for us to be sensitive to God’s loving presence at all times.

In the symbolism of the phenomena on the mountain, the Lord appears to be telling Elijah that although his servant’s indictment of Israel was a call for God to judge his people with windstorm, earthquake and fire, it was not God’s will to do so now. Elijah must return to continue God’s mission to his people and Elisha is to carry it on for another generation.

Full of awe and fully aware of the closeness of Yahweh, Elijah hides his face with his cloak (in case he might come face to face with Yahweh) and emerges from the cave. Yahweh asks him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” It is the same question asked earlier. Elijah now has an opportunity to give a different answer from the last time but he gives exactly the same one as before. He is full of zeal for God’s glory as he sees his fellow-Israelites breaking down the altars of God and killing the prophets. He himself is the only one left. He intimates he is calling for divine vengeance.

He seems to have missed the point of the symbols he just experienced. The Lord is not to be looked for in violent behaviour but in the quiet inspirations of his presence.

Elijah is now given a mission - his last as a prophet. He is to go first to the wilderness near Damascus. Apparently he is to go back by way of the road east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan. He will go back to the east side of the Jordan, from which he had originally come.

He is also told to anoint two kings, Hazael for Aram and Jehu for Israel (Northern Kingdom), and also Elisha as his own successor.

Jehu was a military commander under King Ahab and Joram, Ahab’s son. He was anointed king over Israel by “a man from the company of the prophets” at the instruction of Elisha, with a mandate to destroy the house of Ahab. In general, anointing was reserved for kings (earlier we saw the anointings of Saul, David and Solomon). However, here it seems to mean no more than “designate as chosen by God” because the actual anointings will be done by Elijah’s successor, Elisha.

Elisha’s name means “God is salvation” or “God saves” and it expresses the essence of his calling. His name evokes memory of Joshua (”The Lord saves”). And Elijah is now being given someone to finish his work just as Moses was given Joshua. Elisha will channel the covenant blessings to Israel just as Joshua brought Israel into the promised land. In the New Testament, John the Baptist (identified as Elijah) was followed by Jesus (the same name as ‘Joshua’) to complete God’s saving work.

Elisha is the “son of Shaphat” which means “he judges” and is also descriptive of his mission. And he is from Abel Meholah, like Elijah, from the east side of the Jordan. And that was where John the Baptist also carried out his mission.

Even though Israel would experience divine judgement through Hazael, Jehu and Elishah, God would continue to preserve a remnant faithful to himself among the people. Hazael subsequently became a serious threat to Israel during the reigns of Joram, Jehu and Jehoahaz

Today’s reading reminds us of those people who, in Jesus’ time, asked him for spectacular signs to prove his identity and authority. There are people today too who look for striking miracles, the spiritual equivalent, one might say, of wind, earthquakes and fire but the Lord comes much more subtly into our lives and does so every single day.

And when he comes he may be giving us things to do, as he did with Elijah. Let us be ready for his gentle voice to whisper into our ear today. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with so much noise, much of it of our own choosing, that God finds it hard to get a word in - not to mention a whisper!

Matthew 5:27-32

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

Today Jesus takes two more texts from the Old Testament to continue illustrating his attitude to the Law and its meaning.

Another of the Ten Commandments says: “You must not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Adultery is here understood as a sexual relationship between two people at least one of whom is already married to someone else. But, for Jesus, for a man even to look at another woman with lust (he does not say whether either of them is married) is already to have violated the spirit of the commandment and the kind of relationship that he expects between people. We would need to distinguish here between a man finding a woman particularly beautiful or attractive and, on the other hand, looking on her as an object for sexual gratification. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the former. We might also add that what is said here of men applies equally to women. If women are not mentioned it is because in ancient society the initiative for sexual activity seldom was available to the woman.

This commandment, in fact, is not primarily about sexual acts; it is about the inviolable dignity of each person. It is about the deep respect that people ought to have for their own bodies and the bodies of others. Other people cannot be used simply for one’s personal pleasure or to satisfy one’s sexual appetites - not even in the secret recesses of one’s mind and heart.

Jesus puts the situation rather graphically. He says it would be better to go physically maimed through life rather than allow oneself be led into a situation where another person could be so dishonoured. In human beings, our sexual powers have a double purpose: to express a deep and genuine love between two people and for the procreation of new life.

Related to this, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy (24:1): “Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a writ.” The original text reads as follows: “Supposing a man has taken a wife and consummated the marriage; but she has not pleased him and he has found some impropriety of which to accuse her; so he has made out a writ of divorce for her and handed it to her and then dismissed her from his house; she leave his home and goes away to become the wife of another man.” The text goes on to say that, if this woman then is divorced by her new husband, her first husband may not take her back “now that she has been defiled in this way. For that is detestable in the sight of Yahweh” (cf. Deut 24:1-4).

Two things seem clear: it is men who can initiate divorce and on the flimsiest of pretexts; it is the woman who is guilty of adultery by marrying another man, which is why she cannot be received back by her first husband. (So, most men would want to marry virgins and it explains the pathetic plight of the widow in Scripture.)

Jesus challenges both of these traditions. The Jews accepted divorce but Jesus is ruling it out. The only exception for a marriage to be dissolved is on the basis of porneia (porneia). There is much discussion on the meaning of this term but it seems that it refers to a special situation in Matthew’s community. Certain types of marriage between Jews were regarded as incestuous but were allowed in the case of a Jew marrying a Gentile. But Matthew is saying that in the case of a Gentile becoming a Christian (and marrying a Jewish convert), such exceptions would not be allowed and divorce should not take place. Jesus says further that a man who marries a woman who has been divorced commits adultery.

Jesus is first of all putting men and women morally on an absolutely equal level. He is making the marriage contract something to be taken very seriously with grave responsibilities on both sides. This issue will come up again later (Matt ch. 19) and cause some dismay among Jesus’ disciples.

In our day, the whole question of marriage and the family is fraught with serious problems. Among them are divorce and adultery, although the problems here are somewhat different from that of Jesus’ time. The kind of divorce that Jesus speaks about is of a unilateral decision by a husband who wants to be rid of his wife, often for trivial reasons. In modern society, it is more often the result of the painful breakdown of a marriage relationship. While emphasising that nowadays each case must be treat with great pastoral sensitivity, we do need to remind ourselves of the fundamental values and attitudes that Jesus is underlining in this passage.

Week 10 | Saturday

1 Kgs 19:19-21

We take up immediately from yesterday’s reading. The short passage is actually borrowed from the Elisha cycle or tradition. Elijah has basically finished the work God had given him to do and is getting ready to hand on to his successor, Elisha.

Coming from the mountain where he had met the Lord (yesterday’s reading about the gentle breeze), he comes upon Elisha ploughing behind twelve oxen yoked to ploughs. Elisha himself was following the last one. It seems the other eleven were being driven by Elisha’s servants.

That number of animals and assistants indicated that Elisha was a farmer of some means, perhaps even rich by the standards of his time and place. (He would disparagingly have been referred to in the China of Mao’s days as a “rich peasant”. Ironically, Mao’s own family were well-off peasants.)

As Elijah passed by he threw his cloak over the shoulders of Elisha. The meaning was clear. He was passing over to Elisha the prophetic vocation which had been his. The cloak represented both the person and his authority. And, in Elijah’s case, the cloak had miraculous powers which were also being passed on. Elisha immediately accepted the call and ran after Elijah. He just made one petition, namely, to go back and say a final farewell to his parents. Elijah granted his request.

Elisha went off but, at the same time, he slaughtered his pair of oxen; used the wood of his plough as fuel to roast the meat; then shared the meat with his servants. The meaning was very clear. He was burning his boats and committing himself totally and unreservedly to his calling as God’s prophet and spokesman. Elisha’s break with his past vocation was complete. He then went off and followed Elijah as his attendant. ‘Attendant’ is the same word in Hebrew to describe Joshua’s relationship with Moses.

The story is one of a calling being passed on and being generously accepted.

Elisha’s request to go back and say goodbye to his family (whom he probably never saw again) and a relatively prosperous way of life reminds us of the man who wanted to say goodbye to his family before becoming a disciple of Jesus (cf. Luke 10:59). Jesus said that, for a disciple of his, even that should be set aside. As Peter would say: “We have left all things and followed you” (Mark 10:28). And indeed they had.

But Elisha did show the level of his commitment by disposing of all his property and following the Lord and his teacher, Elijah, with only the clothes on his back.

We might ask what do we still cling to in our following of Jesus? What things would we find it most difficult to let go of if we were asked? What is the level of our commitment to following Jesus right now?

Matthew 5:33-37

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

Today’s third example of Jesus’ “filling out” the meaning of the Law is based on the instruction, “You must not break your oath, but must fulfil your oaths to the Lord.” In the book of Numbers we read: “If a man makes a vow to Yahweh or takes a formal pledge under oath, he must not break his word: whatever he promises by word of mouth he must do” (Numbers 3:30).

Jesus goes far beyond this requirement. He simply tells us to stop making oaths altogether. The true follower of Christ does not need to take oaths or to swear on anything, however sacred, to guarantee the truth of his words. “All you need say is ‘Yes’ if you mean ‘Yes’, ‘No’ if you mean ‘No’.”

The Christian should be a person of known integrity. He can be taken at his word and no further guarantee is required. It is nice to be known as such a person. Truth should be our second name.

Sometimes, of course, people may not be entitled to the whole truth. In fact, honour may require us even to sacrifice our life rather than reveal something that might put another person in danger but we should never be guilty of positively deceiving another.

Week 11 | Monday

1 Kgs 21:1-16

Today we have the story of Naboth’s vineyard - an example of corrupt and shameless use of power. The main characters are King Ahab and his Sidonian wife, Jezebel. We have seen both of them before and the general impression is that Ahab is weak, while his wife is corrupt and ruthless. It was she who introduced the worship of Baal into Israel and had wanted to avenge the execution of the Baal priests by killing Elijah.

The story begins on a reasonable enough note. King Ahab asks Naboth to exchange his vineyard which adjoins the king’s property for another one or, alternatively, to be given its value in money. This property was in Jezreel, where Ahab had a second palace, in addition to his main one in Samaria.

In spite of his position, the king could not confiscate land. The king’s power in Israel was limited by the Law so Ahab was unable simply to take over privately held land, as was customary with Canaanite kings (not to mention kings and governments in our own time!).

Naboth, however, refused because the ownership of the land was a sacred tradition handed down through generations. Naboth’s refusal to dispose of his land was based on the conviction that the land belonged to the Lord and that a perpetual lease had been given to each Israelite family. This was to be jealously preserved as the family’s permanent inheritance in the promised land. (One of the central issues in the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians today is precisely who has prior right to the ownership of the land, especially where outsiders have come in to take it over.)

Ahab, like many people of power when they do not get their way, went into a sulken depression and refused even to eat. In some ways, of course, his behaviour arose out of his respect - or his fear - of the Law which he did not want to violate.

His wife, Jezebel, however, saw things differently. As a Canaanite, she was not used to seeing kingly power challenged and she satirically mocked her husband’s weakness. “A fine king you are!” A sarcastic remark of incredulity spoken by one accustomed to the dictatorial practices of Phoenician and Canaanite kings, who would not hesitate a moment to use their power to satisfy personal interests. Something we see all too often even in these times. She tells him to get up and cheer up because he is going to get the vineyard he covets so badly.

Writing in the king’s name, she shamelessly sent off letters to the aristocracy and the leaders of the people ordering them to proclaim a fast (as if there had been a national calamity) and to put Naboth on trial (as its cause), accusing him of cursing God and the king, both charges carrying the punishment of death by stoning. In effect, the leaders of the community become collaborators in the crime; they could very well have known or suspected the real circumstances.

In addition, they were told to produce two witnesses - as required by law - to make the charges stick, where a capital offence was involved. These men were to give false testimony in order to give a veneer of legality to the proceedings. Naboth was to be accused of cursing both God and king, for which the mandatory sentence was stoning. It seems also that the possessions of those condemned to death went to the king - the main purpose of the whole charade.

It is possible that there may, in fact, have been some form of calamity at the time, such as a drought or famine, which gave Jezebel the excuse to get rid of Naboth. She wanted to create the impression that a disaster threatened the people, a disaster which only be averted if they would humble themselves before the Lord and remove any person whose sin had brought God’s judgement on them.

Everything was done to the letter as Jezebel, in the name of the king, had ordered. The two witnesses gave their false testimony and Naboth was stoned outside Jezreel, as the law required. (Jesus, too, was brought outside the city for his execution.) From references in the Second Book of Kings, it seems that Naboth was actually stoned on his own land and his sons were stoned with him. This eliminated the heirs who might make claim to the land, thus leaving it for the king to take over.

With the vineyard now ownerless, Jezebel told her husband, as king, to exercise his right and take it over for himself. The reading ends with Ahab going down to Naboth’s vineyard to take it over but, as we shall see in tomorrow’s reading, there is an unpleasant surprise in store for him.

This story has overtones of the trial and death of Jesus much later on. Jesus himself, in a parable, will tell of tenants who will take over a vineyard and kill the son of the owner. Jesus, too, will be accused of cursing God and the Roman emperor and will be executed - not by stoning but by death on a cross. In his case, too, scoundrels will be brought forward to make charges of blasphemy against God and sacrilege against the Temple. And, like Naboth, the execution will take place outside the city.

We need to be constantly on our guard that people are not falsely accused even if it is “only” a matter of gossip but even more so if it is a serious matter. And we might ask to what lengths we would be prepared to go simply to have something we want but do not need.

We live, too, in a world where there is a great deal of scapegoating (the ‘blame culture’) and corrupt justice at many levels of public and private life. Let us not be part of it in any way.

Matthew 5:38-42

We continue Jesus’ interpretations of some commands of the Mosaic Law as he pushes that law to a higher level of understanding.

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is not, as it may seem to be saying, an encouragement to take revenge. It is part of what is known as the lex talionis by which punishment for an assault was to be restricted to not more than the suffering experienced. So Exodus 21:23-24 says: “You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.”

Jesus calls for a very different kind of response. He tells us to offer the “wicked man” no resistance.

He makes the famous recommendation to turn the other cheek. If a man would take your tunic, give him your cloak as well. If someone asks you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to the one who begs and do not turn away a borrower.

It is not surprising that even in Christian circles not a great deal of time is given to this text. Is it to be taken literally? Are we really to allow people to walk over us and offer no resistance at all?

I think the answer is both Yes and No.

For many in our “macho”-idealised world, turning the other cheek seems the ultimate in wimpishness and cowardice. It is certainly not the way of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone and countless other “heroes” on our cinema and TV screens. Can you imagine them turning the other cheek?

But Jesus did. During his trial before the Sanhedrin “they spat in his face and hit him with their fists; others said as they struck him, ‘Play the prophet, Christ! Who hit you then?’” (Matt 26:67-68). What was Jesus’ response? Silence. This was turning the other cheek. Was this weakness or was it strength? Which is easier to do under great provocation: to practise self-restraint and keep one’s dignity or to lash out in retaliation? By lashing out one comes down to the same level as one’s attackers. (This is quite different from self-defence.)

In another account of Jesus’ trial (John 18:22-23), after having given an answer to a question, “one of the guard standing by gave Jesus a slap in the face, saying, ‘Is that the way to answer the high priest?’ Jesus replied, ‘If there is something wrong in what I said, point it out; but if there is no offence in it, why do you strike me?’” Here Jesus does respond to the attack but on a totally different level. The physical and unreasonable attack on an unarmed person is actively responded to on the basis of reason and non-violence. Jesus is not a victim here; he is in control. And this is true of the whole experience of the passion. His executioners behave in the most barbaric way but he never loses his calm and dignity right up to the very end.

And that is why we worship him as our Lord and Master. He asks us to follow in his footsteps.

Revenge, in all its various forms, is the easier way, the more instinctive way but it is not the better way. The way of active (not passive) non-violence is, in the long run, far more productive, far more in keeping with human ideals and human dignity. We have more than enough evidence in our world of the bankruptcy of a never-ending cycle of violence and counter-violence. We see it in the Middle East, in Northern Ireland. Violence does not pay; revenge is not sweet.

The example of Jesus has been followed by a number of outstanding people in our own time. Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parkes who inspired him, in the US, Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany, Dorothy Day in the US, Jean Goss and Hildegard Meyer of the active non-violence movement in Europe… All of these people were actively involved in the correction of seriously unjust situations.

There is a striking scene in the film “To Kill a Mocking Bird” where the lawyer (played by Gregory Peck) has been defending a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. As a white man himself the lawyer earns the hatred and contempt of his fellow-whites for defending a “nigger” they have already condemned as guilty. In this scene one of the townspeople approaches the lawyer and spits into his face. The lawyer stands there, says nothing, and slowly wipes away the spit. For the film viewer the contempt immediately shifts to the man who spat. The positive non-action of the lawyer reveals the smallness of his assailant.

Turning the other cheek is not at all a sign of weakness. It requires great inner strength, self-respect and even respect for the dignity of one’s attacker. Jesus is calling us a long way forward and upward from “an eye for an eye”.

Week 11 | Tuesday

1 Kgs 21:17-29

Our reading today follows immediately on yesterday. We see Ahab now pay the price for the murder of Naboth.

Ahab has just been told by his wife that Naboth is now dead so he immediately goes down to the vineyard he coveted so much to take it over. But just then Elijah is receiving instructions from the Lord to go and confront the king in the vineyard. He is given a strong message to pass on to Ahab: “After murdering Naboth, are you now going to take over his ancestral land? In fact, in the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs will lick up your blood also.” Ahab had not directly killed Naboth but he had cooperated fully in the murder and theft planned by his wife and, as king, the ultimate responsibility was with him.

In fact, Ahab’s repentance for his actions, which will be mentioned in a moment, brought about a postponement of this prophecy. Instead, it will be the body of his son Joram which will be thrown on the field of Naboth.

More than that, Ahab is told that all his male descendants, free or slave, will be wiped out. Their bodies will either be eaten by dogs or by carrion-eating birds. The body of Jezebel, too, will be eaten by dogs. “When one of Ahab’s line dies, dogs will devour him; when one of them dies in the field, the birds of the sky will devour him.” These were terrible indignities as dogs were symbolical of all that was unclean and defiled. (We remember the poor man Lazarus in the house of the rich man. The level of his helpless destitution is indicated by dogs coming to lick his sores. He did not even have the strength to drive them away; meanwhile the rich man sat there doing nothing.)

As Elijah pronounces God’s sentence we might note the similarity with the episode of Nathan and David (where he is accused of the death of Uriah after his adultery with Bathsheba). On each occasion Yahweh defends the helpless against the powerful and, as in the case of David, there is the same reprieve for the repentant offender who is punished only through his son. But there are differences, too. David’s dynasty retains the divine promise, whereas Ahab’s is “swept away”. Nathan remains David’s prophet and blesses Solomon but Elijah is Ahab’s “enemy”.

In addition to this murder, we are told that Ahab was responsible for all kinds of abominations, connected with the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites, under the pernicious influence of his wife. He became no different from the Amorites, a reference to the idolatrous peoples of Canaan before the Israelites arrived.

To his credit, after hearing the condemnation of Elijah, Ahab deeply repents of what he has done. He rends his garments, puts on sackcloth and walks in the slow steps of the repentant person.

Because of this, the punishments against his family would be postponed until after he died. He was, in fact, killed in battle at Ramoth Gilead and, after his body was brought to Samaria, dogs licked the blood that was being washed from his chariot. His son Joram was killed and the body thrown into Naboth’s field - just as Elijah had foretold.

Reflecting on this story we can say two things:

- our wrongdoings carry with them unavoidable punishments, built into the very nature of evil actions;

- no matter how serious our faults, God’s compassion and forgiveness awaits those who genuinely repent and change their ways.

Matthew 5:43-48

We come to the last of the six examples that Jesus gave as illustrations of how he brings the teaching of the Law to a higher and more perfect plane.

The saying that Jesus uses today, “You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy”, is not found as such in the Hebrew Testament. Rather we find in the book of Leviticus where it says, “You must not exact vengeance, nor must you bear a grudge against the children of your people. You must love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). The wording here would seem to condone, however, acts of revenge against strangers and outsiders. And, in practice, as indeed is the case in many communities throughout the world, the saying of Jesus reflects the way many people feel is a justified way of acting. And, as we saw earlier on where Jesus spoke about anger, at least limited revenge was condoned in the phrase ‘an eye for an eye…’.

Again, Jesus turns things on their head with a saying which many people would find quite unrealistic, if not downright stupid. He tells us actually to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. How can we be asked to do such a thing?

Yet, if we would only reflect a little, the advice of Jesus makes a great deal of sense and, in fact, is really the only way to go for our own happiness and peace. Otherwise, as Jesus says, his listeners were no different from ‘tax collectors’, a group who, because they worked for the occupying power, were held in special contempt, or pagans, that is, people who lived God-less lives.

To understand what Jesus is saying we need to clarify two words, ‘love’ and ‘enemies’.

Who are our enemies? They can either be the people that we are hostile towards or the people who are hostile to us. The practising Christian who takes on board the teaching of Jesus will want to have positive attitudes to people in general and will not marginalise anyone on the basis of race, nationality, colour, class, gender or whatever. Such a person will not want to act in a way unnecessarily to create hostility in others. However, simply because we try to look and act positively towards others is no guarantee that they will act in the same way towards us. Through no objective fault of our own, we may become the object of their dislike, resentment, hatred, jealousy, anger and even violence. These are our enemies. And we are to love them.

What does ‘love’ mean here? The word that the gospel uses is a verb from the noun agape (’agaph) . Agape is a unilateral way of loving by which, irrespective of the actions or attitudes of another person, I desire their well-being. It is the love which God extends to every one of his creatures, irrespective of how they respond to him. In this it is quite different from the love which involves sharing, intimacy, affection and a strong element of mutual giving.

We are not being asked to love our enemies with the love of affection, to be in love with them or to be fond of them. That would not make sense and they would not want it. But we are asked to reach out and desire their well-being. This can be done when we focus our attention and our concern more on them than on ourselves.

When we are the objects of other people’s hostility we tend to go on the defensive and to generate negative attitudes towards the other. Our inner security (or insecurity) is under attack. Jesus is asking us rather to respond to the real situation rather than to react to spontaneous feelings.

When someone hates me, attacks me, is angry with me for no reason that I can think of, instead of feeling sorry for myself, I will reach out and ask, “What is wrong with that person? Why is that person acting in that way? What is bothering that person? Is there any way I can help to dissolve this person’s negative behaviour which is probably a sign of some inner self-hating or insecurity on their part?”

And certainly when I begin to think in this way, it becomes perfectly natural to pray for that person, to pray for their inner healing, for a restoration of peace and inner security. To hate someone who hates me, to be violent with someone who is violent with me, simply means that there are twice as many problems as there were at the beginning. By responding in the way that Jesus suggests, we end up with no problem at all!

And Jesus gives us another motive for acting in this way: it is the way God himself acts. He causes the hot, merciless sun to shine on the good as well as the bad; the cool, refreshing rain falls equally on the bad as well as the good. What Jesus is saying is that God’s love, his agape, reaches out indiscriminately to every single person, irrespective of their behaviour.

“You must therefore be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Perfection here refers to that unconditional agape that God extends to every single person. If we are to grow into the likeness of God and give witness to his presence in the world, we need to act in exactly the same way. And wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if people followed Jesus’ advice? Far from being impractical, it is the only way to go.

Week 11 | Wednesday

2 Kgs 2:1, 6-14

Today we move on to the Second Book of Kings and we continue where we left off with the First Book. The division into two books is artificial and no such division is found in the earliest Hebrew bibles. The passage we are reading today acts as an introduction to the story of the prophet Elisha. Today we bring the story of Elijah to a conclusion and see Elisha taking over as his successor.

As Elijah is about to leave to go to the Jordan in obedience to the Lord’s call, he tells Elisha to remain behind. Whether this was said to test Elisha is not clear but Elisha renewed his commitment as a disciple of Elijah and insisted on following him.

They are followed by another fifty fellow-prophets who will be witnesses to what is about to happen by the banks of the Jordan which the two prophets have now reached. Elijah then takes his cloak, rolls it up and strikes the waters of the river. As with Moses long ago crossing the Red Sea, the water of the river divides to right and left and the two prophets walk across on dry ground.

It is then that Elijah, about to go away, invites Elisha to make a final request. The younger prophet boldly asks to be given a double share of Elijah’s spirit. Elisha was not expressing a desire for a ministry twice as great as Elijah’s, but he was using terms derived from inheritance law to express his desire for a full sharing in Elijah’s ministry. In Jewish society it was normal for the elder son to inherit a double share of his father’s property. So, in making his request, Elisha is asking to be regarded as the genuine heir to Elijah’s prophetic powers and spirit.

Elijah replies that it is a difficult request to honour, for ultimately the giving of such a gift lies with God and not with Elijah. But he promises that there will be a sign given by which Elisha will know whether his request has been granted. And that will be the Lord’s doing and not Elijah’s. God indicates that the request is granted by allowing Elisha to see what is hidden from other human eyes, namely, Elijah being taken up to heaven.

All of a sudden, a chariot of fire with two fiery horses came between the two men and Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind. Elisha alone could see this; a sure sign that his request had been granted. By riding the chariot, a symbol of Israel’s strength, it is clear that Elijah and not the king is the Lord’s true representative among his people. And Elijah, like Enoch before him (Gen 5:24), was taken up to heaven bodily without experiencing death; like Moses (Dt 34:4-6), he was taken away outside the promised land.

It was generally believed by later generations that Elijah would return to die the natural death that is the fate of all. And his return was expected to herald the imminent coming of the Messiah. In the Gospel, John the Baptist is seen to fill that role.

Elisha then tore his own clothes in half, perhaps in grief at the loss of his master and perhaps as signifying the end of his former life. He picked up the cloak of Elijah which had fallen off as Elijah was carried away in the chariot, thereby symbolically taking on Elijah’s ministry and mission.

Once again Elisha went back to the River Jordan’s bank. As he had seen Elijah do earlier, he struck the water with Elijah’s cloak while he prayed: “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” When he struck the water, it divided to right and left and Elisha crossed over. The power was not in Elisha or in the cloak but only in the Lord God, of whom the prophet is an agent, but it was also a clear indication that the prophet’s role and powers had been passed on to Elisha.

In crossing the Jordan as Joshua had before him, Elisha is shown to be Elijah’s “Joshua” (Elisha and Joshua are very similar names, Elisha meaning “God saves” and Joshua “The Lord saves”). Elisha would play the role of Joshua (who led the Israelites into the promised land) as Elijah played the role of Moses (who did not get to cross the Jordan).

In this story we can see:

- the loyalty of Elisha’s discipleship

- his being called by God to carry on the mission of Elijah

- his becoming, like Elijah, the instrument of God for his people.

In some way, this applies to each one of us in our relationship with Jesus.

Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18

We move today to a different theme, namely, the way in which we are to pay our worship to God.

Jesus’ teaching is based on the three basic acts of religion expected of a devout Jew - almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. In each case, Jesus warns his disciples not to indulge in any form of ostentation so as to attract the admiration of others.

He presents exaggerated images of how we should not do things in the way of ostentatious hypocrites. He speaks about people who blow trumpets in the streets to draw the attention of everyone when they give alms to the poor. He speaks about hypocrites who say their prayers in the most conspicuous places so that people will marvel at how holy they are. He speaks about people putting on gloomy and drawn looks so that everyone will know that they are fasting. In fact, Jews were only expected to fast on one day in the year, namely, on the Day of Atonement but the practice of regular fasting had become more common in Jesus’ time.

All this, Jesus says, is no worship of God but a kind of self-advertisement. Such people, he says, get their reward, namely, the admiration of the onlooker but it is not the reward that comes from acts of genuine worship.

When his disciples pray or fast or give alms they should do it in such a way that their actions will be directed entirely to God and not to themselves. We do remember earlier in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus said that people should be able to see the good works of his disciples but then the purpose was not that they would be praised but that people would be led to glorify God.

As a rider to this passage we should point out that Jesus’ recommendation that we pray in private where only God can see us is not to be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary for us to take part in forms of community prayer, which Jesus himself would have done whenever he attended the synagogue or went to the Temple. It would be a gross misreading of this text to argue, as people sometimes are heard to do, that it is not necessary to attend Sunday Mass because “I can pray equally well in the privacy of my home”. To speak in such a way is to misunderstand completely the essentially communal nature of the Eucharistic celebration.

Week 11 | Thursday

Sir 48:1-14

“Having read in the Book of Kings the story of the great Elijah, we now read Sirach’s poetic description and praise of this prophet” (Vatican II Missal)

It is quite normal in our liturgical readings that, after we have been hearing about one of the great personalities of the Old Testament, there is a final encomium taken from the Book of Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus. We had a similar reading after hearing about David’s life. These testimonies are taken from a part of the book called “Praises of the Fathers”. The book is listed among the so-called ‘apochryphal’ books which are not part of the recognised canon in either the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures of other denominations.

The author of Sirach here recalls the great exploits of Elijah, including his triumph over the priests of Baal and his bringing down fire from heaven when the Lord burnt up the sacrifice of Elijah but not that of the priests of Baal. He was also instrumental in the breaking of a long drought; he raised a dead child to life; and he brought about the destruction of kings (Ahab).

“You heard threats at Sinai, at Horeb avenging judgements.” This seems to refer to the time when Elijah went to the mountain at Horeb and learnt that God was not in violence but in the gentle breeze. This seemed to be a reproof from Yahweh that violent action was not the way Elijah’s enemies were to be dealt with.

Finally, he anointed kings who would do the Lord’s work; he appointed Elisha as his successor; and at the end was taken up to Yahweh in a fiery chariot, the transport of kings.

There is then a subtle reference to his future coming, heralding the arrival of the Messiah:

You are destined, it is written, in time to come

to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord,

to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons

and re-establish the tribes of Jacob.

The coming of the Messiah will see the inauguration of peace (”My peace I give you… John 14:27); it will be a time of reconciliation; and it will see the inauguration of a new family embracing not just the tribes of Jacob but the peoples of the whole world.

Happy shall they be who see you,

and those who have fallen asleep in love;

for we too will have life.

And yes, says the author in a beautiful turn of phrase, “happy shall they be who see you, and those who have fallen asleep in love”. Here there are intimations of immortality. And those “who have fallen asleep in love” surely means in the love of God. However, the Hebrew text is unclear and the sentence may apply to Elisha, whose praises immediately follow.

Elisha was filled with the spirit of Elijah. He wrought many marvels, nothing was beyond his power - even after his death “beneath him flesh was brought back into life”. This refers to a strange event in the Second Book of Kings which took place after Elisha’s death. Just as a dead man was being buried, a raiding party was seen, so the mourners just threw the dead body into the grave where Elijah was buried and fled. But, as soon as the man’s body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up (2 Kings 13:20-21).

Shakespeare has one of his characters say rather cynically that “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”. Unfortunately that is often the case but as Christians we might make a special point of remembering the good things that people did in their lifetime, as this reading does.

Matthew 6:7-15

Into yesterday’s passage on how we are to worship God through prayer, alms and fasting, Matthew puts a related piece of teaching how we ought to pray. This clearly seems to be an insertion and today we deal with it separately.

Jesus tells his disciples not to pray like many of the Gentiles. They go in for long prayers, hoping that eventually God will hear them. That is quite unnecessary, Jesus says, because our Father already knows our needs before we ask. If that is the case, why then should we bother praying at all? We do not pray to tell God what he already knows; we pray so that we will realise more deeply our needs and our total dependence on him.

Jesus then goes on and tells his disciples how they should pray. He teaches them, in effect, what we now call the Lord’s Prayer, or the ‘Our Father’. We have become accustomed to reciting this prayer very often - at every Mass, whenever we say the Rosary and at many other times.

The prayer in this form (Luke has a shorter version) contains seven petitions. Seven is a favourite number for Matthew. In listing the genealogy of Jesus he divides it into three lists of seven (chap. 1); there were probably seven Beatitudes in the original text (chap. 5); there are seven parables of the Kingdom (chap. 13) and forgiveness is to be offered not seven times but 77 times (chap. 18); there are seven ‘Alas’ when denouncing the Pharisees (chap. 23). Finally, the gospel itself is divided into seven main sections (Infancy, five discourses, passion).

The text of the Lord’s Prayer should not be seen as just a formula for vocal recitation. It is, rather, a series of statements and petitions in which we affirm our relationship with God, with the people around us and with the world in general. It is a statement of faith and it is, as we shall see, a highly challenging and, therefore, even rather dangerous prayer.

Let us take a brief look at the petitions one by one.

1, Our Father:

The challenge and the danger begin right in the first two words. We address God as Father, the source of life and of everything that we have; we have nothing purely of our own. But God is not just ‘Father’; he is ‘our‘ Father. And that ‘our’ includes every single person who lives or has ever lived on this earth; not a single person can be excluded.

In addressing God as ‘our Father’ we are acknowledging that every human person, including myself, is a child of God and therefore that we all belong to one huge family where we are all, in a very real way, brothers and sisters to each other. There is no room here for rejection, or hatred, or prejudice or contempt of any kind based on race, nationality, colour of skin, gender, sexual orientation, social class, religion… If I am not prepared to accept every single person as a brother or sister, I will have problems even beginning to say this prayer.

2, May your name be held holy:

Other forms are ‘Hallowed be thy name’ or ‘Holy be your name’. Of course, God’s name is holy no matter what we say or think. We make this prayer for our sake more than for his. Here we are praying that God’s name be held in the deepest respect by people everywhere. That is not the case: some people despise his name and others do not even know it. We pray that the whole world will know God’s name, which is to say, to know and recognise God as their God and Lord, their Creator and Conserver and the final end of their lives on this earth. It is, in fact, another form of the next petition.

3, Your kingdom come:

We have already spoken about the nature of the kingdom. It might be more accurate to say, ‘Your kingship come’. In other words, we pray that every person in our world may put themselves consciously and willingly under the kingship and lordship and the love of God. We do this, above all, by our working together to make this world the kind of place that God wants it to be - a place of truth and love, of justice and peace, of sharing and caring. In one sense, of course, God is Lord irrespective of our relationship to him. But it is clearly his will that people, on their part, should accept that loving lordship as the centre of their lives. And that is the work of the Church and of every single Christian, indeed of every person anywhere - to help people recognise the kingship and lordship of God and to accept it as the key to their present and future happiness.

4, Your will be done on earth - as in heaven:

This, in a way, is simply another way of saying what we have already asked for in the previous two petitions. For that is the will of God that people everywhere recognise the holiness of his name and submit themselves gladly to his kingship and lordship in our world. We do that most effectively by identifying totally with the mission and work of Jesus to bring life, healing and wholeness to our world. To do the will of God is not simply to throw aside what we want and accept God’s will even when it is totally contrary to our own. We are only fully doing God’s will when we can see clearly that what he wants is always what is the very best for us. And we are only fully doing his will when we fully want what he wants, when our will and his will are in perfect harmony. Then we do what he wants and we do what we want. We are praying here to reach that level of oneness.

5, Give us today our daily bread:

It does not look like it but this also is a highly dangerous prayer for us to make. First of all, we are only asking for what we need now. Later in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus will tell us not to be anxious about the future. We are asking for what we need today; tomorrow is another day. We take care of one day at a time.

But there is one little word here that is highly dangerous. It is the word ‘us’. Who is that ‘us’? Just me and my immediate family? or my parish? or my neighbourhood or my town or my country? Surely it is the same as that ‘our’ in the first petition - it includes every single person. I am praying, therefore, that every single person have bread to eat today. We know, of course, that there are millions of people (some of them in rich countries) who do not have enough to eat or who suffer from malnutrition and poorly balanced diets. In praying that all of ‘us’ have our daily bread, are we expecting God to drop manna from the skies or are we not reminding ourselves that the feeding of brothers and sisters is our responsibility? If people are hungry or badly fed, it is not God’s doing; human beings are responsible in most cases (outside of natural disasters).

This petition prayer can also include the Bread of the Eucharist. But in sharing that Bread together we are saying sacramentally that we are a sharing people and we will share our goods and blessings with others, especially those in need. Otherwise our Eucharist becomes a kind of sacrilege.

6, And forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven those who are in debt to us.

Again is this not another dangerous prayer to make? We are asking that God’s forgiveness to us be conditional on our readiness to forgive those we perceived to have hurt us in some way. That is a daring thing to do. And forgiveness does not simply mean uttering a few words. Forgiveness in the Scripture always includes reconciliation between offender and offended. In fact, I would go even further and say that the fully Christian person is never offended, cannot be offended. The true Christian has a rock solid sense of their own security and their own inner worth which no other person can take away. When such a person is the recipient of some attack, be it verbal or physical, their first response is to reach out to the attacker with concern and sympathy. It is the attacker who has the problem, not the one attacked. Most of us have a long way to go to reach that level of inner peace. ‘If what you say about me is true, I accept it; if it is false, then it is false. Why should I take offence?’

7, And do not put us to the test, but save us from the evil one (or from evil).

In the end, we acknowledge our weaknesses and our total dependence on God’s help. We pray that we will not find ourselves in a situation where we fall seriously. We ask to be protected from the powers of evil with which we are surrounded.

Some texts conclude with “For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen”, which is used by many Christian denominations and is now included in the Catholic Eucharist after the Lord’s Prayer but separated by a prayer for peace. It is believed that this conclusion, not found in most MS., was introduced for liturgical reasons.

Finally, in addition to simply reciting this prayer in the rapid way we normally do, we could sometimes take it very slowly, one petition at a time and let its meaning sink in. Or we could just take one petition which is particularly meaningful to us at any time and just stay with it until it really becomes part of us.

Week 11 | Friday

2 Kgs 11:1-4, 9-18, 20

“We read one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Judah. Around 837 BC the wicked queen mother Athaliah seized power. The high priest Jehoiada led a revolution, put the young Davidic King Joash on the throne and renewed the covenant with God.” (Vatican II Missal)

If we thought Queen Jezebel was bad, we are hardly ready to read about Queen Athalia. She was a daughter of King Ahab but Jezebel was probably not her mother. Her influence on King Jehoram, her late husband, paralleled that of Jezebel on King Ahab.

When her son, King Ahaziah died at the young age of 22, she immediately moved to have all his children, that is, her grandchildren done away with so as to secure the throne of Judah (the southern kingdom) for herself. The royal family had already been reduced to a mere remnant. Jehoram, her late husband and the father of Ahaziah, had already killed all his brothers when he succeeded his father Jehoshaphat on the throne. King Jehu had slain another 42 members of the royal house of Judah, perhaps including many of the sons of Jehoram’s brothers. To top it all, the brothers of Ahaziah had been killed by raiding Arabs.

In the eyes of the author, this attempt to completely destroy the house of David was an attack on God’s redemptive plan - a plan that centred on the Messiah, which the Davidic covenant had promised and which depended on the continuation of the Davidic line to become a reality.

However, as we are told today, a sister of King Ahaziah managed to save one of the princes, Joash, and hid him first in the servants’ sleeping quarters together with his nurse. This would indicate that the child was not more than a year old and not yet weaned. There he remained in hiding while Athalia took over as ruler of the kingdom. This woman, Jehosheba, was the wife of Jehoiada the high priest, who will soon appear in the story, and it explains how she was able to keep Joash hidden in the Temple for six years.

Not surprisingly, Athalia in time became the object of a palace coup organised by the high priest Jehoiada. It happened in the seventh year of her rule. He made a pact with the captains of the mercenary soldiers who served as the palace guard. The Carians were mercenary soldiers from Caria in southwest Asia Minor who served as royal bodyguards. After both those on and off duty had sworn their commitment, they are secretly shown the young prince. They are then given detailed instructions on how to protect him.

They got together their men and were given weapons which David had captured in a former battle. David had probably taken the spears and gold shields as plunder in his battle with Hadadezer and then dedicated them to the Lord (see 2 Sam 8:7-11). This would explain why there were weapons in the Temple. They then surrounded the altar and the Temple. Joash, the king’ son, was brought out, anointed as king by Jehoiada and given some of the royal insignia. He was then acclaimed by the people gathered in the Temple for the Sabbath. “Long live the king!” they cried. This was clearly an act of rebellion and a coup d’etat.

Athalia discovered the rebellion too late. She saw the new king “standing by the pillar”. This was apparently one of the two bronze pillars of the portico of the Temple. With him were “all the people of the land”. It is likely that Jehoiada had chosen to stage his coup on a Sabbath during one of the major religious festivals, when many from the kingdom who were loyal to the Lord would be in Jerusalem. Athalia tore her garments and cried “Treason! Treason!”

Jehoiada then gave orders for her arrest. Any of her supporters were to be killed and she was not to be executed within the sacred confines of the Temple. As was the custom, she was put to death outside the city confines, near the ‘horse gate’ of the royal palace.

Jehoiada then had a double covenant made between the Lord and his people and between the new king and the people. It was a renewal of the Mosaic covenant declaring that Israel was Yahweh’s people and the king his vice-gerent. The years of apostasy, involving both the royal house and the people of Judah, necessitated a renewal of allegiance to the Lord at the time of an important new beginning for the southern kingdom.

Finally, the temple to Baal, its altars and images were smashed and Mattan, the priest of Baal, was put to death.

All the “people of the land”, that is, the country people, supported the return to the traditions of David and Yahweh. The city was forced to accept the situation.

Finally, right order had been restored between God and his people.

Matthew 6:19-23

This short passage contains two related teachings.

The first may seen as a commentary on the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Give us this day our daily bread’. It is a teaching about the things which are really valuable, which really count. We live in a highly materialistic world where a very large number of people seem to believe that material wealth is the solution to every problem. There is nothing that money cannot buy, no problem it cannot solve. This belief prevails even though every day it is shown to be false.

Jesus urges us to put our trust and our security in something less perishable, something more lasting. To ‘store up treasure in heaven’ is not just to pile up a whole lot of ‘good works’ which will be to our credit in the next life. That credit too can be very quickly lost. It is much more a question of growing more and more into the kind of person who is steeped in the values and the outlook of the Gospel. It is less a question of doing than of becoming. We also build treasure by what we give away, by sharing with others whatever gifts we have, especially those most in need. “As long as you do it the least of my brothers you do it to me.”

And, as Jesus so wisely says, ‘where your treasure is, there will your heart be also’. Obviously, the question for me to ask today is: Where is my treasure? What do I value most in life? And how do I reveal that in the way I live?

And that brings us to the second part.

“The lamp of the body is the eye.” That is to say, what I see with my inner eye determines everything else about my life. “If your eye, that is, your vision is sound, your whole body, that is, your whole being will be filled with light. But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be all darkness.”

It is that light which we need in order to have a clear vision of what is most valuable in our lives. The person who cannot see beyond money, status, power, or fame is truly in darkness. Life is not about getting these things. Life is about who we are; it is about love and relationships.

Let us pray today for vision and light and to be able to discern what are the real treasures, the most precious things of human living. Our Christian life is above all a vision of life.

Week 11 | Saturday

2 Chr 24:17-25

“We turn today to Second Chronicles for a further unhappy episode in the history of Judah. The zealous high priest Zechariah, son of the same Jehoiada who had saved King Joash, is murdered in the Temple area. Jesus referred to this sad story (Matt 23:31).” (Vatican II Missal)

Our reading is taken from the Second Book of Chronicles but, chronologically, it follows on the events of yesterday’s reading where we saw the young Joash, who had been rescued from certain death at the hands of his murderous grandmother, Athalia, and made king through the instrumentation of Jehoiada, the high priest. Sadly however, as happens so often in these accounts, treachery again takes over.

When Jehoiada died, officials began to work on King Joash who listened to what they had to say.

As a result, the people of Judah began to abandon worship in the Temple and turned to various forms of idolatry. As a result “wrath [i.e. God’s anger] came upon Judah and Jerusalem” - the southern kingdom and its capital. The Hebrew word for ‘abandon’ or ‘forsake’ is repeated three times in the passage, indicating the reason for the divine punishment which follows. There are many similar examples in other parts of the Old Testament.

When prophets were sent to bring them back to their senses and to God’s ways, the people refused to listen. Their rejection of these prophets was a rejection of Yahweh himself and thus sowing the seeds of the destruction to follow.

Then Zechariah, the son of the former high priest Jehoiada, was inspired to call the people back to the worship of Yahweh. “Because you have abandoned the Lord, he has abandoned you,” he told them. But instead of listening to his appeals, they plotted against him and, at the orders of the king, stoned him to death right there in the Lord’s Temple. A terrible sacrilege had taken place.

The blame is laid fairly and squarely on King Joash. It was an extraordinary act of ingratitude to the son of the man who had rescued the king as a young child from the same fate. As he died, Zechariah cried out, “The Lord sees and he will avenge.” The cry is a contrast to the words of Jesus on the cross and of Stephen before his martyrdom. In the Old Testament justice is often achieved through vengeance, violence met with violence. In the New Testament, violence is not the way.

This cruel death is referred to indirectly by Jesus: Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus says “You testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murder the prophets” (Matt 23:31).

The retribution was not long in coming. A year later an army of Aramaeans attacked King Joash and executed his officials, perhaps those very ones who had led him and the people astray to the worship of idols.

Although the Aramaean forces were not large in number, they were, by God’s power, able to overcome the much larger army of the Joash and the Judeans for deserting their God. Just as God had helped the small army of Judah against overwhelming odds when the king and people were faithful to him (14:8-9; 20:2,12), so now in their unfaithfulness they are defeated by a much smaller force of invaders.

Joash was treated as, in the thinking of the time, his royal status deserved but they left him a very sick man. Finally, his own officers, the ones perhaps who had helped Jehoiada engineer the coup against Athalia, moved to avenge the death of the high priest’s son Zechariah, and murdered the king in his bed. He was buried in the citadel of David but not in the tombs of the kings.

Once again, sin does not pay.

Matthew 6:24-34

We continue with Jesus’ teaching on our attitude to material and visible things.

We have to make a choice between the vision of life that Jesus offers or a preoccupation with money and possessions. They are not compatible. They involve conflicting goals in life and different visions of what is most important in life. The truly materialistic person may have a veneer of Christian practice but cannot be a really committed Christian and vice versa.

Jesus preaches what St Ignatius Loyola calls ‘indifference’ to material things. Obviously some material things - like food and clothing and shelter - are necessary to daily living. At different times other things will be necessary too.

The attitude of ‘indifference’ is not that one does not care; on the contrary, one cares very much. But one cares to have things and to use things only in so far as they are needed to love and serve God and others for his sake. Jesus urges us to liberate ourselves from worry and anxiety about our body and material things such as food and clothing.

To be concerned about food because right now I am very hungry and do not have any is very different from worrying whether I will have food next month; to be anxious about what is happening when I am in intensive care is very different from wondering how long my health will hold up in the coming years; to be fretting because I have no money to pay my rent with the landlord knocking at the door is very different from wondering whether I will ever be rich.

Worry and anxiety about the future are a waste of time and energy yet we indulge in them so much. We are invited to look at the birds of the air and the flowers in the field. They do nothing except be themselves and God takes care of them. And how beautiful they are! When their time comes they pass away.

We are often so busy regretting the past or worrying about the future that we never get to enjoy life. Enjoyment and happiness are only in the present. Nowhere else. If we keep looking forward or looking back we will never find happiness. And yet it is right here in our grasp at every moment of every day. As Fr Tony de Mello used to say, “You have everything you need right now to be happy.” How our lives would be transformed if only we could really believe that! Because happiness can only be in the NOW. Yesterday’s happiness is gone; tomorrow’s does not exist. If I am not happy now, I never will be.

So, to follow the advice of Jesus today, “Do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself.” God is in the here and now and nowhere else. He is always available.

Week 12 | Monday

2 Kgs 17:5-8, 13-15, 18

We continue today with the tragic tale of the Kings and the punishments they and their people experienced for their serious violation of the Lord’s will for them. We see in today’s reading the fall in 721 BC of the Northern Kingdom (variously called Israel, Samaria or the Ten Tribes, as opposed to the Southern Kingdom known also as Judah).

This all happened in the reign of King Hoshea, who reigned for nine years altogether. However, “he did evil in the sight of the Lord” although his behaviour was not as bad as some of his predecessors. He fell victim to an Assyrian invasion and became a vassal of the Assyrian King Shalmeneser. However, after violating the terms of his vassalage by sending envoys to the king of Egypt and failing to pay tribute to the Assyrians, he was arrested and thrown into prison.

The whole of Samaria was then invaded and the city of Samaria was captured. The well-defended city took three years to overcome. Shalmaneser died just before the capture - possibly by assassination - and the actual capture was effected by his son, Sargon II. In his annals Sargon laid claim to the capture of Samaria at the beginning of his reign, but it was hardly more than a mopping-up operation.

This spelt the end of Hoshea’s reign and it saw a major deportation of the Israelites to exile in Assyria. In his annals Sargon II claims to have deported 27,290 Israelites. They were brought to Halah, whose location is uncertain, but it was near the Habor, a river not far from Haran in the extreme north of Mesopotamia. (The name ‘Mesopotamia’ means ‘between rivers’ because it lies between the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, and corresponds more or less to Iraq today). Gozan was an Assyrian provincial capital located on a tributary of the Euprhates. The “cities of the Medes” lay east of Mesopotamia (in Persia or Iran). They were towns located in the area south of the Caspian Sea and northeast of the Tigris River. The Israelite settlements there would form the background for the story of Tobit (which we read at another time in the liturgical cycle).

And so the second part of the reading is a commentary on why all of this happened. The events described in today’s readings are clearly attributed to the sins of Israelites against their God, the God who had brought them up out of the slavery of Egypt to the freedom of the Promised Land. In the Old Testament, things seldom happen by chance nor are purely human agencies involved. Good things indicate God’s blessings and bad things his displeasure.

It was due to the Samarians’ continual worship of the idols worshipped by their conquerors. (It seems that it was this kind of situation that Jesus was referring to when he told the Samaritan woman that she had had five “husbands”. Each time it was conquered by an invading force, Samaria had adopted the religion of its new masters.)

The accusations do not seem to come from one source but are a compilation of several. For the principal author of the book the grievous fault of Israel is the religious pluralism, an ‘original sin’ of which every king of Israel is accused. The language is rich in reminiscences of Deuteronomy and the prophets (especially Jeremiah) as it denounces religious compromise and the setting up of local and idolatrous shrines.

Israel repeatedly spurned the Lord’s graciousness to it and refused to heed the prophets’ warnings of impending judgement and had failed to keep her covenant obligations. The result was the implementation of the covenant curse precisely as it had been presented to the Israelites by Moses in his final words to the Israelites before they entered Canaan (Deut 28:49-68) and in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1-47).

Israel not only violated the requirements of the Sinai covenant, but she also spurned the words of prophets the Lord had graciously sent to call his people back to the covenant as well as the ministries of Elijah, Elisha, Amos and Hosea. Instead they showed themselves “stiff-necked”, like a stubborn ox being placed under the yoke. (A phrase used by Jesus also when speaking of the Pharisees.)

Ultimately they experienced defeat and exile as “the Lord put them away out his sight”. All that was left was Judah, the Southern Kingdom which included the city of Jerusalem and elements of the tribes of Simeon and Benjamin. Its behaviour was not much better and it would not escape either. Further on, but not in our reading, a second addition extends the condemnation to Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

In our own lives we do need to be careful about attributing to God’s anger or vindictiveness painful experiences in our lives or in the lives of others. One hears the scourge of AIDS described as God’s punishment on the sexually promiscuous. Yet many of those who contract the virus are totally innocent e.g. people who unknowingly received transfusions of tainted blood or babies born to an HIV-positive mother, who herself may have been the unknowing victim of a wayward husband. It is unthinkable that God punishes the innocent for the sins of others.

Nevertheless, sinful acts consistently indulged in are undoubtedly destructive of individuals and communities. But the effects arise out of the disordered nature of the acts themselves rather than as a direct act of God. And they are warnings to us that we have strayed from the paths of truth, love and integrity.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Matthew 7:1-5

We begin today the last chapter of the Sermon on the Mount. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged”, that is, by God. This is a good example of Matthew using an impersonal passive voice to avoid mentioning the name of God which is understood. Another example is where he has Jesus say, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they will be forgiven” [by God].

Jesus today touches on an issue in which very few of us can claim innocence - passing judgment on others. Sometimes we call it gossip which seems harmless enough and very often it is relatively harmless. And yet at times we can spend a long time tearing other people apart, revealing to others information about people which they do not need to know. What Jesus says is so true. We focus on a tiny speck in someone else’s eye while there is a large plank in our own.

In fact, that is probably why we are so fond of indulging in this exercise. Our purpose is not so much to bring another person down as to bring ourselves up. Often those we judge are higher placed than we are or more gifted or more educated. To some extent unconsciously, we feel inferior. One way to even things up is to bring them down, to reveal their feet of clay.

But, as Jesus says, this is a kind of hypocrisy. Given our own faults, what right have we to sit in judgement on another? So often our judgements are based on the purely external or on incomplete evidence. We condemn acts while being quite ignorant of the motives behind the acts. Only God is in a position to make an accurate judgement of a person’s strengths or weaknesses.

Linked with all this is the fact that, nine times out of ten, we would never make our criticisms face to face. This, on the one hand, is a form of cowardice and, on the other, proves our hypocrisy because we make no effort to help the person make the changes we would like to see. It might be a good resolution for us to promise only to criticise people to their face and then in a non-judgmental fashion. And to give them an opportunity to express their side. Sometimes we will find that our criticisms are without real foundation or we will find the person grateful for drawing attention to something they were unaware of.

And removing that plank from our eye is another way of saying that, before we make any evaluation of another, we need to be sure that our view is totally free from any prejudice or bias. We do have a serious responsibility to draw attention to things that people do wrong, especially if others or they themselves are hurt, but it is a responsibility we often shirk. Gossiping behind their backs is so much more fun. But, in the long run, it helps no one.

Week 12 | Tuesday

2 Kgs 19:9-11, 14-21, 31-36

Having overcome the Northern Kingdom, the Assyrians now turn their attention to the Southern Kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem. What happens is almost the exact reverse of yesterday’s reading.

The famous Sennacherib, the one who “came down like a wolf on the fold”, is now the Assyrian king. He sends a letter to Hezekiah, king of the Southern Kingdom, demanding surrender. There is no use, says Sennacherib, their appealing to their God. All other countries have fallen before the Assyrian juggernaut; why should Judah be the exception?

Hezekiah has only one option - to pray to his God for help. He calls on his God who alone is God over all the kingdoms of the earth and has made them all. True, says the king, the Assyrians have carried all before them. They laid nations to waste and tossed their gods into the fire. They could do this for these gods were just human artefacts of wood and stone.

But Hezekiah’s and Judah’s God is different. “Save us from the power of this man, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, O Lord, are God,” the king prays.

At this point Isaiah, the prophet, intervenes with a long (vv.21-31) oracular message from God (and, except for its final verse, not included in today‘s reading). Part of it is addressed to Sennacherib and the second part to Judah. It is a mocking statement directed against the Assyrians and guaranteeing that, no matter what happens, “out of Jerusalem shall come a remnant”.

Isaiah interprets this as saying that Sennacherib will not reach Jerusalem; he will not attack it nor be able to institute a siege against its walls. “He shall return by the same way he came without entering the city.” The city will remain safe from attack. “I will shield and save this city for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”

And that very night 185,000 of the Assyrian army were mysteriously struck down and Sennacherib had no option but to return to his capital at Niniveh. What seems to have happened is that the Assyrian army was struck down by some virulent infection or plague which swept through it like a forest fire. Soon after his return, we are told in the following verse that, while worshipping in the temple of his god Nisroch, Sennacherib was assassinated by two of his sons who then fled into Ararat. Another son took over the throne. A further example of what happens to those who attack God’s people.

Here, as yesterday, we see that things do not happen by accident. The destruction of the Assyrian army may be attributed to purely natural causes but the eyes of faith see there God’s protecting hand for his people and especially for the city of David to which he had made so many promises. Nevertheless, Jerusalem will not remain unscathed. It will be, as Isaiah foretells today, not utterly destroyed but reduced to a remnant. From that remnant will come a descendant of David,

Let us, too, see the hand of God operating in all the details of our lives - both the joyful and painful - and discern what he is trying to tell us.

Matthew 7:6, 12-14

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

Today’s passage contains three apparently unrelated teachings of Jesus. Vv. 7-11 on prayer, which intervene, are omitted. (We need to remind ourselves that the Sermon on the Mount is not a verbatim record of a “sermon” preached by Jesus. It is a highly edited collection of sayings on the general theme of the qualities to be found in a true disciple of Jesus.)

a, “Do not give to dogs what is holy.” That is, consecrated meat from animals sacrificed in the Temple should not be given as food for dogs. We need to remember that for the Jews (as for the Muslims) dogs are unclean animals, so that is an extra reason for not giving them meat consecrated for purposes of divine worship. We may remember the remark of Jesus to the Syro-phoenician woman about not giving the food of children to dogs, a reference to Gentiles who were also thought to be unclean. Or the humiliation of Lazarus in Luke’s parable who was so helpless that he could not prevent dogs licking his sores.

Similarly something as precious as pearls should not be given to pigs, another unclean animal. Again we remember in the parable of the Prodigal Son, how after hitting rock bottom the only job he could find was to feed pigs and he was so hungry he would have eaten the pigs’ food.

In other words, Jesus is advising his followers not indiscriminately to expose their beliefs to all and sundry. While, in one sense, the Christian way is for all there are people who are not ready to hear it and will not just reject it but subject it to ridicule. This would especially apply to certain Christian practices such as the celebration of the Eucharist or other sacraments. We do not accept people into the Catholic community except after a long period of formation and initiation. Faith in Christ is a gift and not everyone receives it at once.

b, The second saying is the famous ‘Golden Rule’, which is not exclusive to Christianity or the Gospel. It is known in other cultures. What might be emphasised here is its being expressed in positive terms. There is also a negative form, ‘Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you’. There is a difference between the two. You can observe the negative maxim by doing nothing at all. The positive can only be observed by doing some good action to others and is therefore much more in line with the general teaching of Jesus.

c, The contrast between the narrow gate and the wide road. To follow the wide road is to do just about anything you feel like doing. It is to follow your likes and dislikes, your instincts and whims wherever they lead you. That is going to include following roads of greed and self-centredness, of lies and deceit, perhaps even of violence and hurt. It is clearly not a way of life.

The narrow gate is not to be narrow-minded. It is rather to be very clearly focused on certain very specific ways of thinking and acting, having one’s life guided by a clear set of truths, principles and values, those truths, principles and values which form the core of the Gospel’s teaching. In other words, the Way of Christ. It is a way that leads to life.

It is a hard road only in the sense that it requires discipline and it is true that relatively few people find it. In the long run it is the easier way because it conforms more to the deepest needs and desires of the human person. (It is important to be aware that the Way of Jesus is not an eccentric choice of lifestyle, one religion among many, but that it is in total harmony with all that human life is meant to be.) But there is no doubt that the wide undisciplined road is the easier one to follow even though in the long run it does not bring happiness.

Week 12 | Wednesday

2 Kgs 22:8-13; 23:1-3

In today’s reading we have moved about 100 years on from yesterday. King Josiah is now on the throne of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Hilkiah, the high priest, tells Shaphan, an expert in the Scriptures, that he has found the “book of the law” in the Temple. “This ‘Book of the Law’,” comments the Jerusalem Bible, “is certainly Deuteronomy or, to be precise, its legislative portion, the main statutes of which form the guiding principles of the subsequent reform. It was the sacred law of the Temple of Jerusalem, hidden or lost or at least completely forgotten during the reign of the impious Manasseh.” However, other interpreters think it may refer to the entire Pentateuch (the books attributed to Moses which are also the first five books of the Old Testament).

Shaphan in turn brought the scroll to the king and read it out to him. When the king heard the contents, he tore his garments. He realised just how much the statutes of God’s law had been neglected and violated. He now understood how the misfortunes of the people were the signs of God’s anger “furiously set ablaze against us”. Perhaps the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 and/or Deuteronomy 28, climaxing with the threat of exile, were the statements that especially disturbed Josiah. We can contrast Josiah’s reaction with that of Jehoiakim to the words of the scroll written by Jeremiah (see Jer 36:24). On that occasion, Jehoiakim treated the text with contempt and burnt it passage by passage as it was read to him by the prophet Baruch.  Needless to say, he paid a high price for his arrogance.

Josiah then gave instructions to a number of important people to consult the Lord on what was laid down in these writings on behalf of himself, the people and all of Judah. Among them were Hilkiah, the priest already mentioned, Ahikam and Acbor. Ahikam was the father of Gedaliah and later appointed governor of Judah by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He was also the protector of Jeremiah when his life was threatened during the reign of Jehoiakam (see Jer 26:24). Acbor’s son, Elnathan, is mentioned in chapter 24.

These people, together with some others, went to consult a prophetess in Jerusalem called Huldah. She confirmed that the terrible threats on those who had broken the law and worshipped idols would be carried out as foretold. However, King Josiah would be spared this fate because, after hearing the contents of the document, he had expressed deep repentance and grief and rent his garments. He would go to his grave in peace and would not live to see the awful punishments that would be visited on Jerusalem. (These particular details are omitted in our reading.)

The whole population, including priests and prophets, is then gathered together to have the whole “book of the covenant” read to them. This was another name for the book of Deuteronomy which claimed to be the code of the covenant of the people with Yahweh (Deut 5:3; 28:69). Whatever else the scroll contained, it clearly included the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 and/or Deuteronomy 28.

The king then, as the Lord’s representative, renewed the covenant of God with his people, promising to observe “with their whole hearts and souls” all its requirements. As he did so, he stood “by the column”, that is, one of the two bronze pillars in the portico of the Temple. Josiah fulfilled the role of one mediating a covenant between God and his people just as Moses, Joshua, Samuel and King Jehoiada had done before him.

The people then pledged themselves to obey the covenant. It is likely that some sort of ratification rite was performed, in which the people participated and pledged by oath to be loyal to their covenant obligations. Whether this was done symbolically or verbally is not said.

It is good for us, too, regularly to go through the New Testament and especially the Gospel and renew the promises we made in our Baptism. We might ask ourselves, too, how much real attention we give to the Word of God proclaimed to us at every Eucharist in which we participate. And we might seriously consider spending some time each day reading and studying the Scripture. A careful reading of the Gospel will often reveal to us just how far we have strayed from the call of Jesus to be his disciples.

Matthew 7:15-20

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

Our reading contains a warning which must have been very relevant in the early Church but has not lost its meaning in our own day.

Prophets who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. On the outside, they seem to have the image of Jesus, his gentleness and love, but in fact they are religious predators, using people for their own ends. There have been unfortunate examples of this in some so-called ‘televangelists’ who, in the name of the Lord Jesus, ripped off countless numbers of trusting people, many of them elderly and not well off, by making them pledge large sums money they could not afford.

How can you recognise them? By their ‘fruits’, by the way they behave and not just by what they say or the claims they make. It is not that difficult to separate the genuine from the false. As Jesus says, it is not possible for a bad tree to consistently produce good fruit nor for a genuinely good tree to produce bad fruit. Very often we have to admit that we try to make a good impression on people and we often try to hide from others what we believe to be our weaknesses.

Integrity and transparency are precious qualities to be found in any person and they are not easy to achieve. Most of us wear masks of some kind. Most of us can identify with the title of John Powell’s book - ‘Why Am I Afraid To Tell You Who I Am?’  In fact, people can often identify more easily with a person whose faults are admitted. They feel that they are dealing with the real person and not a phoney. This can apply very much to pastors and other religious leaders.

Jesus is calling on us today to be really genuine people. Take care of the inside and the outside will take care of itself.

Week 12 | Thursday

2 Kgs 24:8-17

The First Deportation

Ultimately, the fate of the southern kingdom, including Jerusalem, was to be no better than that of the north. However, the conquerors now are not the Assyrians but the new “world power” of the day, the Babylonian empire under King Nebuchadnezzar. We meet him again in the Book of Daniel where we read the famous stories of the hand writing on the wall and the dream of the statue with the feet of clay, the story of Daniel in the den of lions and the three young men in the fiery furnace. Like all the emperors before and after him, his empire was doomed to fall. But here he is seen as an instrument of God in bringing punishment on the sinful and idol-worshipping people of Judah.

King Jehoiakim of Judah had unwisely rebelled against the Babylonians after being subjected to them for three years. This brought a wave of invasions and destruction from neighbouring peoples on sinful Judah (2 Kings 24:1-7).

Now his son, Jehoiachin, a mere 18 years old, had only been on the throne for three months. The young king, like his predecessors, did not follow the ways of the Lord which means that he led a life of immorality and idolatry. It is just then that Jerusalem was besieged by the Babylonian forces. Less than 25 years had passed since the events of yesterday’s reading when Jehoiachin’s father, Josiah, had tried to turn the people of Judah back to God and observance of the covenant law.

During the siege, Nebuchadnezzar himself arrived. According to Babylonian records the king “encamped against the city of Judah, [that is, Jerusalem] and on the second day of the month of Addaru [i.e. March 16, 597 BC] he seized the city and captured the king”, Jehoiachin. It was the eighth year, by Jewish reckoning, of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The city does not seem to have put up much of a fight, even though, built on a hill with steep sides, it was a formidable challenge to attacking forces, as Sennacherib found to his cost.

Jehoiachin, however, together with his mother and all his court, surrendered and was taken captive by the Babylonian king. He was to remain there for 37 years, until the death of Nebuchadnezzar, under relatively comfortable circumstances. This fulfilled a prophecy of Jeremiah:

As I live, says the Lord, if you, Coniah (short for ‘Jeconiah’), son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, are a signet ring on my right hand, I will snatch you from it. I will deliver you into the hands of those who seek your life; the hands of those whom you fear; the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and the Chaldeans. I will cast you out, you and the mother who bore you, into a different land from the one you were born in; and there you shall die. Neither of them shall come back to the land for which they yearn. (Jer 22:24-27)

What was in a way even more shameful and sacrilegious, the treasures of the Temple and the royal palace were all carried away. Some of these included gold vessels which had been put in place by King Solomon when he built the Temple. It was in one way a terrible sacrilege but, with sacrifices no longer possible, there is even an implication that Yahweh is no longer present among his people.

Finally, practically the whole population of Jerusalem was carried off. This included the whole of the army, as well as craftsmen and artisans. All of these could be used by Nebuchadnezzar for his own building projects. Only the poorest of the poor were left behind. Altogether some 10,000 were reportedly taken away. There is likely to have been an overlap between soldiers and skilled craftsman, just as in Israel today all young men have to serve in the armed forces.

In Jehoiachin’s place, his uncle Mattaniah was installed as king and given the name Zedekiah. Mattaniah was a son of King Josiah, whom we saw in yesterday’s reading and the brother of Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim. Mattaniah means “gift of Yahweh” while Zedekiah means “Yahweh is my justice”. It has been suggested that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to imply that his actions against Jerusalem and Jehoiachin were just. There is even a hint that the king is simply an instrument of God’s justice in what took place. In any case, the name change signified subjection to Nebuchadnezzar.

Once again, we see God’s people pay for their infidelities in keeping the law of the Lord. And yet, it is likely that many of those who were carried off adjusted to their new circumstances, made the best of them, may even have done very well and came to regard their place of exile as home for them and their children. In our own times, we see Jewish communities in exile thriving not to mention the millions of other peoples who have contributed to the ‘melting pot’ that is the United States, Australia and the European Union.

There was not much benefit in sitting and moping about one’s past and longing for old days, old ways and old places, although some did do that (as in the Psalm, “By the rivers of Babylon…”). Nothing that happens to us is the end of possibilities. Every experience is a challenge to find God in a new situation, a new environment. Wherever life brings us, God is there close by. He is always to be found where we happen to be now, not where we would like to be.

Matthew 7:21-29

Sermon on the Mount (cont’d):

We come today to the final reading from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus spells out the essential quality of the true disciple. He or she is not to be measured merely by external activities.

It is not enough, for instance, to keep saying “Lord, Lord…” That by itself will not bring a person under the kingship of God. It will not be enough even to be able to perform wonders like casting out demons or working other miracles even in the name of Jesus.

The true disciple is someone who is totally united to God in heart, soul and mind. Such a person is one who listens to Jesus’ words and carries them out. As we have said elsewhere, listening here means a number of things:

a. To pay attention to what Jesus is saying to us; to listen with attentiveness.

b. To understand what is being said. It is possible to listen without understanding.

c. To accept fully and to assimilate into one’s being what one understands. It is possible to hear clearly, to understand clearly but not to accept or assimilate. Children do that all the time!

d. When we have fully assimilated as part of our own thinking what we have heard and understood, we will naturally act accordingly.

It is only when all this becomes a reality in our lives that we can say we are truly disciples of Jesus and, as he says, that is the only sure foundation on which to build our lives.

To live a Christian life only on the surface, that is, only with words and externally conforming behaviour, is like building a house on sand. Once we come under attack, we will collapse because we have no deep foundation inside. We see that happening frequently when people who have lived in an outwardly Christian environment move to a purely secular situation. They fall away very quickly. So let us be like that sensible man who builds his house on rock, the firm foundation that is Christ with the vision of Christ also the vision of our own life, a life built on truth and love.

With this we come to the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew clearly indicates the end by saying, “Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say..” He adds that Jesus’ teaching made a deep impression on the people, mainly because he spoke with authority - “You have heard it said, but I say…”. That is, he spoke in his own name, unlike the Scribes who could only be interpreters of God’s Law.

As mentioned at the beginning, the Sermon on the Mount is the first of five major discourses. It deals mainly with the qualities that are to be found in the individual follower of Christ. Let us pray that those qualities may be found increasingly in each one of us.

Week 12 | Friday

2 Kgs 25:1-12

The Second Deportation

We come to the end of the sad story of Israel’s degradation and humiliation.

Yesterday we saw how Mattaniah, renamed Zedekiah, had been made a puppet or vassal king of Judah, the southern kingdom, by Nebuchadnezzar. He was no improvement on his predecessors. The passage which comes between yesterday’s and today’s readings is as follows: “Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem… And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that Jehoiakim had done. For because of the anger of the Lord it came to the point in Jerusalem and Judah that he cast them [the two kings] out from his presence. And Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon” - a bad mistake on his part (2 Kings 24:18-20).

It was in the ninth year of his reign that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem with his army and, for the second time, laid it under siege. Earlier, he had subdued all the fortified cities in Judah except Lachish and Azekah (see Jer 34:7). A number of Hebrew inscriptions on potsherds were found at Lachish in 1935 and 1938. The Lachish ostraca (or letters) describe conditions at Lachish and Azekah during the Babylonian siege.

Jerusalem, built as it was on an outcrop of high rock with steep sides, was not an easy city to capture and was able to resist for more than one year into the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign. But eventually, with the people starving, the walls were finally breached. (Did some desperate citizens deliberately bring this about to bring the siege - and their starvation - to an end?)

However, the king and his soldiers escaped from the city by night. Because of the surrounding armies, they had no option but to head for the Arabah, a desolate area in the Jordan valley. But there was no escape and the hapless king was caught, near Jericho and abandoned by his troops.

He was brought into Nebuchadnezzar’s presence where sentence was passed on him, as a rebellious vassal. His two sons (his potential successors as king) were killed before his eyes while Zedekiah himself then had his eyes put out and was brought to Babylon. Ezekiel (12:13) had prophesied that the king would be brought to Babylon but would not see the city. Jeremiah had advised Zedekiah what to do to avoid his own punishment and the destruction of the city but the king had not listened (see Jer 38:14-28).

Finally, Nabuzaradan, the captain of the Nebuchadnezzar’s bodyguard, took control over Jerusalem. He proceeded to wipe out every vestige of its past by burning the Temple, the king’s palace and every large building in the city. In the previous siege, the vessels of the Temple had been taken away but the building had remained. Lastly, the formidable walls which had protected the town were torn down.

The remainder of the population, those who had gone over to Babylon’s side and the last of the artisans were all carried off into bitter exile. Only the very poor were left behind to take care of the vineyards and the farms. They would form the remnant which would maintain the continuity of the city of David with the future.

Otherwise, it was an ignominious end of the kingdom originally established by Saul. With the outstanding exception of David - and even he had done some pretty bad things - the dynasty had a pretty dismal record as vicegerents of Yahweh.

The lesson of the reading is very similar to that of previous days. God does not take vengeance as we humans do but, on the other hand, we do reap the natural consequences of immoral behaviour.

At the same time, even the most negative experiences can be turned round. A good example of this is to be found in Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning, where he shows that those who survived best in the Nazi concentration camps were those who found positive meaning and something to live for even in the utter degradation of their surroundings. Frankl himself was a clear example of one such person. And out of all this corruption and immorality will come David’s descendant, Jesus the Christ. God certainly does write straight with crooked lines.

Matthew 8:1-4

The two chapters (8 and 9) following the Sermon on the Mount include a long list, ten altogether, of miracles performed by Jesus. They are seen as a confirmation of his authority to teach because they are so obviously the work of God himself. The man who can do these things also has the right to be heard and followed.

The first story is the cure of a leper. It is told with the usual brevity and lack of detail characteristic of Matthew (compare Mark’s version, 1:40-45). A leper begs to be healed. His faith and trust in Jesus is revealed by his saying, “If you want to you can heal me.” Jesus replies, “I do want to.” And he cures him instantly. We may note the simplicity of Jesus’ act. In this, the healing miracles of Jesus contrast with the fantastic stories from the Hellenistic world and those sometimes attributed to Jewish rabbis.

But Jesus’ miracles also differ because of the spiritual and symbolic meaning attached to them. They often have the quality of a parable and frequently the words that accompany the miracle are of greater significance. As in this case, where the healing of the leper has wider ramifications as indicated below.

While compassion is often the motive behind a miracle, most often they are seen as strengthening a person’s faith. Jesus, too, is very selective in the miracles he performs and often demands secrecy from the beneficiary. Jesus does not want to be the centre of any sensational wonder-working.  It will be the miracle of his resurrection that will be the really determining factor of Who he is.

Soon, we will see Jesus sending out his disciples to proclaim the Kingdom and giving them his own powers of healing. Their mandate will be to do the same work that Jesus has been doing. The 10 miracles recounted in chaps. 8 and 9 will be the kind of thing that the missionary successors of Jesus will also do.

After the healing, Jesus then he instructs the man, in accordance with the requirements of the law, to go to the temple to get a certificate from the priests as proof of his return to health. Only with this official documentation will he be allowed to re-enter society.

The leper was a particularly unfortunate person in ancient society. It was known that through contact with a leprous person one could contract the disease, so they were kept isolated from the rest of society.  There was, of course, no known cure and the person’s body just gradually rotted away.

What was probably more tragic was the fact that many people with other kinds of similar-looking skin diseases which were not at all infectious could be branded as lepers and condemned to the same policy of isolation.

The healing of the leper by Jesus was then much more than a physical healing. It meant that the man could be fully re-integrated into normal society.

In our time, the leper can be a symbol for all those who are marginalised by our societies for one reason or another - foreigners, people of a different colour or culture or religion, drug addicts, alcoholics, AIDS/HIV victims, gays and lesbians.

We Christians have a special responsibility to be agents of healing to re-integrate such people and accept them fully as brothers and sisters.

Week 12 | Saturday

Lam 2:2, 10-14, 18-19

“The Book of Lamentations contains five poems of sorrow over the destroyed Jerusalem. Written probably by an eyewitness, these words express a poignant grief that the chants of Tenebrae [in Holy Week] put to music.” (Vatican II Missal)

Today’s reading is from the Book of Lamentations. We have come to the end of our readings about the history of the Kings, contained in the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings and the books of Chronicles. We began with Saul and finished with Zedekiah, a puppet king installed by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar.

Our reading today is taken from chapter 2 which speaks of the Lord’s anger against Zion, that is, Jerusalem. In this chapter the author describes the wretched fate of kings, priests, prophets, elders, children and then, addressing Zion, he reminds her how the false prophets have lied, and urges her to bewail her fate before God.

The passage reflects the bitterness and suffering of the people in Jerusalem undergoing the effects of a terrible siege. The buildings of the city have all been torn down. The king and his family have been humiliated and take into exile. The men of the city, in penitential sackcloth and ashes, sit in silent misery on the ground. The women are bowed down to the ground.

The author, perhaps an eyewitness, is overcome with bitterness as he sees children and babies die of starvation. Piteously they ask their mothers for food. But there is none. Eventually they die in their helpless mothers’ arms.

There are harsh words for false prophets, the propagandists of their day. They denied the reality with idealistic and misleading or specious visions, instead of pointing to the real cause of the people’s sufferings - their infidelity to their God, to the true and the good. Jeremiah frequently denounces false prophets. The word ‘misleading, specious’ in the Hebrew comes from the same root as that underlying the word ‘banish’ in Jeremiah 27:10,15. In other words, the lies of false prophets “mislead” the people and thus lead to “banishment” by the Lord - so they are “banishing” in their effect.

“Cry out to the Lord, O daughter of Zion”, a personification of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The people indeed have much to weep for, both for their present miseries and the reason for them. Their only remedy is to turn to their God in prayer. “Rise up, shrill in the night, at the beginning of every watch.” There were three watches in every night so the whole night could be spent profitably in prayer.

Let them pour out their hearts like water. That is, let them pour out their hearts in prayer and petition. Let them lift up their hands in supplication especially for the lives of their little ones, the victims of their parents’ wrongdoing.

It is a sober reflection that there are still so many places and times in our contemporary and supposedly technologically ‘sophisticated’ world where people are in similar and even worse circumstances, where children walk around naked and in a daze, so long deprived of food that they do not even know they are hungry.

And the causes are still the same: the sins of people, the sins of greed and neglect and a failure to see each other as brothers and sisters and to accept responsibility for them. Cain’s question is still being cynically asked: “Am I my brother’s (and sister’s) keeper?”

Matthew 8:5-17

Today we read the second of the 10 miracles of Jesus described by Matthew after the Sermon on the Mount. It is a story also found in Luke and John but, strangely enough, not in Mark.

The significant element in this story is the fact that the person asking for help is a centurion, a soldier and presumably not a Jew. Yet he has this great faith in Jesus. It is a sign of the future role of Gentiles in the originally all-Jewish Christian community.

He asks Jesus to cure a servant who has become paralysed. Jesus immediately responds that he will go and cure him. “No, no,” replies the centurion. “I am not worthy that you should come to my house. Just say the word and my servant will be healed.” (Words very familiar to us from their paraphrase used in the prayers before sharing in Communion.) And he goes on to say that as an army officer, he just has to give commands and they are carried out on the spot. When it comes to healing, he knows that Jesus can do the same.

Jesus is astonished at the faith of this pagan: “Nowhere in Israel have I found faith like this!” And he foretells that this is a sign of what is going to happen in the future when Gentiles from all over the world will enter the Kingdom while many of Jesus’ own people will be left outside. What is more they will become God’s people sharing glory with the Jewish ancestors: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is a sad theme running through the whole of this gospel: the rejection of Jesus by so many of his own people and their self-chosen exclusion from the Kingdom.

The faith that Jesus expects is not an acceptance of religious doctrines. It is rather an act of total trust and surrender by which people commit themselves to the power of God - in this case, the power of God in Jesus. “Christ asks for this faith especially when he works his miracles, which are not so much acts of mercy as signs attesting his mission and witnessing to the kingdom; hence he cannot work miracles unless he finds the faith without which the miracles lose their true significance.” (Jerusalem Bible, loc. cit. Text references omitted.)

For this reason this faith was not easy to give, especially for many of Jesus’ hearers who could not see the presence of God in Jesus and hence could not commit themselves to him. Even the disciples were slow to believe. We see this especially in Mark’s gospel. But, once present, such a faith can bring about the transformation of a person’s life, as many converts to Christianity can attest.

Turning to the centurion Jesus says, “Go back home; you have believed, so let this be done for you.” The servant was cured at that very moment.

What is clear from this story and from many other healings by Jesus is the crucial element of faith in the one approaching Jesus. It is the only condition necessary - racial origins are irrelevant. Luke will tell us that Jesus was restricted in the help he could give to the people in his home town of Nazareth because they simply did not have faith in him.

Let us pray that we may never lose that gift of faith which has, in the mysterious ways of divine Providence, been given to us. And let us remember that, without that faith, God will be hampered in reaching out his healing love to us.

Week 13 | Monday

Amos 2:6-10, 13-16

For the next eight weeks we shall be reading from Old Testament prophets. The first of these is the prophet Amos. He was a shepherd from Tekoa in the southern kingdom of Judah. From there he travelled north to Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and to the great cult centre which was the shrine of Bethel. There around 750 BC he scolded the people for their hypocritical religious devotions while ignoring the demands of social justice around them. He was finally expelled from the sanctuary by the priest in charge.

His poetry is filled with imagery and language taken from his own pastoral background. The book we have is an anthology of his oracles and was compiled either by the prophet or by some of his disciples.

Amos is a prophet of social justice. He is strongest of all in his condemnation of those who make ostentatious displays of religious piety while acting abominably with their less fortunate brothers and sisters. For a small amount of wrongdoing, the prophet says in God’s name, God’s promises will not be revoked from his people. But he then goes on to list what seems to be widespread and outrageous behaviour, especially towards the more vulnerable members of society.

They are willing to sell an otherwise good man into slavery just for the money they can get and they will sell off a poor man and be happy to take just a pair of sandals as payment or sell him into slavery when he could not repay a debt for which his sandals had been given in pledge. They constantly trample on the poor and the weak and hold them in utter contempt.

The avarice of the already rich and of men in power is a constant preoccupation of the prophets. That avarice is still with us. To care for the poor and the oppressed and to protect them from injustice were clearly commanded by Israel’s law and, indeed, throughout the ancient Near East, kings were supposed to defend such people.

He further charges that there are cases where both father and son have sexual relations with the same woman. She might have been a slave in the household or perhaps a temple prostitute. Sacred prostitution was a feature of Canaanite worship which contaminated Israel.

Or it may even have been an incestuous relationship: father with wife and daughter, son with mother and sister. According to the law, to have sexual relations with a woman meant an obligation to marry her, while father and son having sexual relations with the same woman was strictly against the law and there were severe sanctions for such behaviour.

Clothes which have been taken as a pledge against borrowed money are then worn by the lender during religious ceremonies. There may even be an implication here that the borrower was left with nothing to wear. The law prohibited keeping a man’s cloak overnight as a pledge, or taking a widow’s cloak at all.

Wine demanded of those against whom (perhaps false or extortionate) charges of damages were made is then piously drunk at the ceremonial banquets following the offering of sacrifices. The “house of God” then is effectively reduced to the “house of their god”.

Such behaviour, Amos says, is a flagrant act of ingratitude to their God who helped them wipe out the Amorites, that is, the inhabitants of Canaan, on their arrival in the Promised Land. It is a display of thanklessness to Yahweh who brought them out of slavery in Egypt and led them to the land of Amorites after accompanying them for 40 years in the desert. God’s care and providence for them should now be reflected in their care and providence of their community, most of all, the weak and the vulnerable.

Because of their shameless behaviour, they can expect the worst to happen to them. They will be crushed as a heavily laden wagon of corn crushes what is beneath it. Those who can run fast will find they cannot escape from the approaching disaster. The strong will find themselves weak. The soldier will lose his life and the archer be unable to release his arrows. Even the bravest of warriors will not have time to dress and will flee the approaching threat naked.

“On that day” - the day God comes in judgement, as he as he did through the Assyrian invasion that swept the northern kingdom away never to recover.

Obviously, the prophet is saying that there is a remedy and that is to heed the prophet’s warnings and to change their ways.

This is a very powerful passage and is as meaningful today as when it was first written. Allowing for some changes of time and place, there is a distressing familiarity with the prophet’s accusations for things have not changed very much in nearly 3,000 years (this was written about 750 BC).

At least, let us look into our own lives and see if any of these accusations could even be remotely thrown against us. And, where we can, let us work together with others to remedy the situation. Our relationship with God is not measured just by our attendance in church or the carrying out of religious obligations. There can be no love of God, there can be no true religion where there is no practice of justice and loving concern for the weak and marginalised.

Matthew 8:18-22

There are times when Jesus goes out of his way to meet the crowds. On one occasion we are told he was filled with compassion because he saw them as sheep without a shepherd. But today, he gives orders to cross the lake apparently to avoid the crowds pressing in on him.

The crowds represent two kinds of people: those in real need of teaching and healing and those who are simply driven by a kind of curiosity for the unusual. Jesus is not particularly interested in the second kind; they represent a false interest in Jesus. For them he is just a sensation, a wonder-worker, ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’.

Similarly, when a scribe approaches Jesus and says, “Teacher, wherever you go I will come after you.” It seems like a generous offer but Jesus reminds the man of just what that may entail. “Foxes have lairs, birds in the sky their nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

To follow Jesus means, like him, to be ready to have nothing of one’s own. As Jesus said earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, we cannot at the same time serve two masters. To be with Jesus is to accept a situation where we may have nothing in the way of material possessions. Our security will be elsewhere.

We do not know whether the scribe took up the challenge or not. It does not really matter. Jesus’ words are recorded mainly for us to hear them. What do I think when I hear them? Have I made the choice between having Jesus and having things? Or do I think I can have both? Do I want to have both?

Another person, described as being already a disciple, asks for permission to go and bury his father first before following Jesus. It seems a fairly reasonable request and Jesus’ reply sounds rather harsh. “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.” Both the Jewish and Hellenistic world regarded this as a filial obligation of the highest importance. (I knew a man who asked to delay his becoming a Catholic until he could give his father a Buddhist burial; in the event he never did become a Christian.)

There are two ways we can understand this reply. In one case, the man is asking to postpone his following of Jesus until his father dies and he can bury him. But to follow Jesus is to enter a new family with a new set of obligations. It is not that the man should not honour his father but, in the meantime, there are other things of much greater importance that need to be done. In the new family, of which his father is just one member, there are more pressing obligations. It is another way of Jesus letting us know that our following of him has to be unconditional. We cannot say, “I will follow you if…” or “I will follow you when I am ready…” When he calls we have, like the first disciples, be ready to drop our nets, our boats and even our family members.

Another way of understanding Jesus’ words is to see his call as a call to a way of life. Those who want to go their own self-seeking ways belong to the spiritually dead. Leave the burial of the dead to them. The rituals of society, including burial, have their place, an important place but for Jesus the call to the Kingdom represents a commitment to a more important set of values.

We must put all these statements in their context. They make clear that following Jesus involves a radical commitment but it does not mean that that we act in ways that are inhumane or unreasonable. Soon after Peter and Andrew had abandoned their boats and their nets to follow Jesus, we find Jesus in their house tending to their mother-in-law who had fallen sick (Mark 1:29-31). There was a time when some religious sisters were not allowed to attend a family funeral. That has now changed - and rightly. At the same time, the call of Jesus still involves a total commitment.

Week 13 | Tuesday

Amos 3:1-8; 4:11-12

Amos continues his severe warning to his people. He speaks to the “whole family” that God brought up from the land of Egypt, apparently addressing all 12 tribes, although the Northern Kingdom only included 10. The others formed the Southern Kingdom, Judah, of which Amos himself was a member.

Over all these years God had shown his people a love which he had not given to any other people. “You alone have I favoured more than all the families of the earth.” However, they had taken this privileged position as a right and did not respond in love and service. “Therefore I will punish you for all your crimes.” Because of the abundance of love and favours showered on them, their wrongdoings far from being overlooked are considered all the more serious. Israel’s present strength and prosperity gave rise to a complacency about her privileged status as the Lord’s chosen people. She is now shockingly reminded of the long-forgotten responsibilities her privileges entailed.

What is going to happen them must follow, then, as night the day. And Amos lists a set of rhetorical questions. When things happen, they demand a cause. There can be no effect without a cause, nor any cause without an effect. Therefore, the behaviour of the people inevitably brings a reaction from God expressed through the mouth of his prophet.

Amos builds up a series of questions leading to an understanding of why God reacts with terrifying punishment on his people. Each picture is of cause and effect, using figures drawn from daily life - and culminating in divine action.

“The lion roars - who will not be afraid! The Lord God speaks - who will not prophesy?”

The prophetic call cannot be resisted: in all this passage the prophet is justifying his intervention. There is neither effect without cause, nor cause without effect. If the prophet exercises his office, it is because Yahweh has spoken; if God speaks, the prophet cannot but prophesy. The images chosen suggest that the message will be one of disaster.

In the past, there had been terrible punishments. When Sodom and Gomorrah were utterly destroyed in an “upheaval” (referring to an earthquake?), Abraham and his family, the only faithful ones left, were “like a brand plucked from the fire”. The complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and its sinful people had become proverbial. In spite of this and similar experiences in their history, “you returned not to me, says the Lord”.

Now, God is once again going to deal with his faithless people in his “own way”. The passage ends with frightening words: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” And we know that a terrible punishment indeed awaits them resulting in the utter and final destruction of the Northern Kingdom.

We, too, call ourselves God’s people and have been particularly blessed by the revelations that come to us through Jesus and the Christian Testament. But this greater knowledge only makes our wrongdoings all the more serious and deserving of greater punishment. Where God is concerned it, there is no ‘inside’ track by which we can claim privileged treatment over non-believers. On the contrary, the closer we are to God, the greater our responsibility. That is why the saints could see themselves as sinners. Their closeness to God made even their minor shortcomings matters of repentance.

We, too, can think of many times when God has rescued us or given us ample warnings and yet we have continued our sinful ways. Are we ready to meet our God? For some, it is a moment to be dreaded. For others, it is a day to be looked forward to with a passionate longing. “For me, life is Christ and death is gain,” Paul wrote to the Christians at Philippi (Phil 1:21). For me, which is it?

Matthew 8:23-27

Yesterday we saw Jesus telling his disciples to get into a boat to cross to the other side of the lake of Tiberias. Before he left, there were two men who asked to be disciples and we saw how Jesus dealt with them.

Now, as they crossed the lake a storm suddenly blew up. It seems this is a common feature of Lake Galilee. Actually the word that Matthew uses for ‘storm’ should be translated ‘earthquake’. It was a word commonly used in apocalyptic literature for the shaking of the old world when God brings in his kingdom and the Synoptic gospels use it in describing the events leading up to the final coming of Jesus. It indicates that there is more to this story than just a narrative.

While waves crashed into the boat Jesus remained fast asleep. In great fear, the disciples woke up him, “Lord, save us! We are lost!”

Jesus was not very sympathetic. “Where is your courage? How little faith you have!” Then he stood up and rebuked the wind and sea. There immediately followed a complete calm. The disciples were awestruck and, in a way, were more afraid than ever. A storm they could understand but not what they saw Jesus doing. “What sort of man is this that even the winds and the sea obey him?”

In their book, only one person could have this kind of power and that was God himself. Their question contained its own answer. It was a further step in their realising just who Jesus their Master really was.

We can, however, read another meaning into this story. We can understand it as a kind of parable about the early Church, the Church for which Matthew is writing. It was a Church consisting of many, small scattered communities or churches. They were surrounded by large, pagan and often very hostile peoples.

Each little church community must have felt like those disciples in the boat with Jesus surrounded by a large expanse of water. Sometimes that water got very angry and threatened to engulf their boat. At the same time, Jesus their Lord seemed to be very far away; he seemed to be asleep, unaware and uncaring of their plight. The fact that in the gospel today they address him as “Lord” would indicate that the story is points more to their present situation as isolated communities in a very uncertain world.

Then they would come to realise that Jesus really was with them and that he did care a lot. And peace would come back to them again. But the peace would be in their hearts; the sea around them might be just as stormy as ever.

This is something for us to learn. Most of the time we can do very little to change the world around us or change the people who bother us. Maybe we have no right to make them change. But we can change; we can learn to see things in a different way; we can learn to be proactive instead of reactive.

Above all, we can learn to be aware that God is close to us at all times, that he does know, that he does care, that, instead of taking things away, he helps us to go through them and keep our peace.

Week 13 | Wednesday

Amos 5:14-15, 21-24

Today we have another appeal for people to act with a sense of justice. The passage begins with a rather generalised exhortation to “seek good and not evil”. To “seek good” is, of course, to seek the source of all Good, God himself and to stay away from everything that is contrary to his nature.

Then we can truly claim that “the Lord, the God of hosts” is with us. God, in a sense, is everywhere, in and through everything but for him to be fully in me, my heart must be fully open for him to enter and for me to experience the power of his love. And, if we do genuinely try to seek him, then he will truly be with us. But how that is to be done is yet to be spelt out by the prophet.

That spelling out begins when Amos says that to “hate evil and do good” means, among other things, to “let justice prevail at the gate”. In the cities of the time, local government functioned in the large open space inside the city’s gate. The implication is that justice does not always prevail. But only if the ‘remnant of Joseph’ can behave consistently with justice will they experience the Lord’s compassion. The ‘remnant of Joseph’ refers to those from the tribe of Joseph who are still remaining in the Northern Kingdom after it has been depleted by successive punishments from Yahweh, through the instrumentation of various invaders. This is the first mention of the ‘remnant’ of Israel in the prophets.

There is an implication that a change even now would benefit the individual survivors of the disaster, though the nation as a whole was doomed to perish.

In the second half of the reading, to make sure that there is no misunderstanding about what seeking good and seeking God entails, Yahweh, in the prophet’s name, denounces the plethora of feasts and liturgical festivals scattered throughout the year.

It is an attack against identifying religious with rituals and liturgical practices. The prophets often attack religious hypocrisy, the conviction that all is well, provided external forms like sacrifice and fasting are observed, even when the most elementary principles of social justice and neighbourly love are neglected. The Psalms lay emphasis on the inner dispositions that must lie behind acceptable sacrifice: obedience, gratitude, contrition; the Books of Chronicles, too, insist on the part played in sacrificial worship by the liturgical chant as an expression of inward sentiments; these authors also protest against a religion of mere form.

The Christian Testament will formulate the distinction even more definitively. In attacking the Pharisees who laid great emphasis on external ritual and the cleanliness of vessels used even in ordinary eating, Jesus had said: “Give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be ritually clean for you” (Luke 11:41-42). “Not everyone who calls me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who do what my Father in heaven wants them to do” (Matt 7:21). John too, in speaking with the Samaritan woman tells her that true worship is not in a particular place but only in Spirit and truth (John 4:21-24).

Amos puts it in even stronger language: “I hate, I spurn your feasts, I take no pleasure in your solemnities.” These verses summarise and reject the current practice of religion in Israel. The institutions were not wrong in themselves; it was the worshippers and the way they worshipped that were wrong. The people had no basis on which to come to God, because their behaviour reflected disobedience of his law. What value then could be given to empty ritualistic practices?

Examples given are ‘cereal offerings’, samples of the harvest offered in thanksgiving; ‘stall-fed peace offerings’, specially fattened cattle also offered as thanksgiving for good herds and flocks; ‘noisy songs’ and ‘melodies of your harps’ accompanying the liturgical rites. On their own, these are of little value although there are many who believe that participation in these activities is equivalent to holiness and union with God.

But the only real holocaust the Lord wants is that “justice surge like water and goodness like an unfailing stream”. These are the prerequisites for acceptance by God but they are what Israel is rejecting. Justice is to flow like a never-failing stream in contrast to river beds that are dry much of the year. As plant and animal life flourishes where there is water, so human life flourishes where justice and righteousness are constantly practised.

On the one hand, it would be quite wrong to deduce from this reading that we go to the other extreme and to think that, provided we are engaged in acts of love and justice, we can dispense with all liturgical rites, that we can forget about our Sunday Eucharistic celebration.

On the other hand, there is a real danger that we can measure our service of God by our regular attendance at Mass, even daily Mass, and the regular saying of certain prayers or involvement in certain devotions and novenas. “He is a very good Catholic; he is a daily communicant.” That will only be true if, first of all, there is a genuine participation in a community-centred liturgy and, secondly, if church attendance is part of a life totally dedicated to the living of the Gospel, especially those parts of the Gospel which call for personal involvement in serving the needs of those around us and, indeed, of people in other parts of the world too, who are in need of any kind.

The sacramental liturgy plays an absolutely central role in our Christian lives but only when it is in close dialogue with lives based on love, justice and compassion. Each one reinforces the other.

Matthew 8:28-34

Matthew’s version of this strange story is quite different from and much shorter than Mark’s. It is usual for Matthew to pare down stories just to the essential details while Mark tends to give a more dramatic presentation. In Matthew’s version, too, there are two possessed people instead of just one. (Similarly in his version of the Bartimaeus story told by Mark [10:46ff], Matthew [20:29ff] has two blind men.)

In the previous story about the calming of the storm we saw that Jesus and disciples were crossing the lake. They now come to their destination, a place known as the Gadarenes. It got its name from the town of Gadara on the south-east side of the lake.

Here Jesus was met by two people possessed by demons who completely controlled them. Unlike many of the ordinary people, the demons in these two men have an insight into Jesus’ identity although they may not recognise it fully. “What do you want with us, Son of God?” Jesus usually refers to himself as Son of Man and never as Son of God. “Have you come here to torture us before the time?”

There was a belief that demons would be free to roam the earth until the Judgment Day came. They did this by taking possession of people. This possession was often associated with disease, because disease was the consequence of sin and a sign of being in Satan’s power. That is why when Jesus expels a demon there is often a cure as well. By driving out these spirits Jesus inaugurates the Messianic age which many of the people do not recognise but which the demons do. Later Jesus will hand over this exorcising power together with the ability to effect cures to his disciples. We will see that in the discourse in chapter 10.

The demons then begged Jesus to let them go into a nearby herd of pigs. Jesus consented to this. As soon as they had entered the pigs, the whole herd rushed headlong over a cliff and into the water below. The swineherds rushed off to the nearest town to tell what had happened.

The townspeople immediately came out in search of Jesus and, not surprisingly, begged him to go somewhere else. It might seem rather high-handed of Jesus to destroy a whole herd of pigs in this way. We have to remember, however, that in Jewish eyes these pigs were abominably unclean. There was not a better place to put demons and it was they who really brought about the destruction of the animals. But, understandably, the owners of the pigs found it difficult to see things in the same way.

The purpose of the story, of course, is to focus on Jesus’ power to liberate people from evil influences which were destroying their lives. What these men were suffering could not be compared to the loss of the pigs’ lives and these would have ended up in a cooking pot anyway.

We, too, need to ask Jesus to liberate us from any evil influences or addictions which enslave us and prevent us from being the kind of persons he wants us to be.

Week 13 | Thursday

Amos 7:10-17

Today we see Amos expelled from the sanctuary of Bethel, which, as mentioned, was in Israel, the Northern Kingdom.

The reading begins with Amaziah, the priest at Bethel, telling Jeroboam, king of Israel, about the things Amos has been saying against the king: “Jeroboam will die by the sword and Israel shall surely be exiled from its land.” By “Jeroboam” he means the royal house, where the king’s name also represents the dynasty. In fact, Jeroboam will die a natural death (2 Kings 14:29) but his son and successor Zechariah will be assassinated (2 Kings 15:8,10).

By any standards, these would be regarded as treasonable words and they were seen as such. The fact that they would be proved true was not relevant at this time. And, as far as Amos was concerned, he was simply transmitting words of warning from God to his people.

Amaziah the priest, who comes across as someone more interested in his personal position and career with the king than in the service of God, is determined to get rid of this trouble-maker. “Off with you, visionary!” sums up the contempt that Amaziah feels for Amos. Amos is never again to prophesy in the shrine at Bethel, which Amaziah describes as the king’s sanctuary and a royal temple. Amaziah’s allegiance is to the King of Samaria rather than to Israel’s heavenly King. Amos is dismissed as a prophet for hire who need not be taken seriously.

Amos, however, makes no claims to being a member of a school of “professional” prophets. He is neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son. He denies any connection with any school of prophets or their disciples. No one had hired him to announce judgement against Jeroboam and Israel.

He says that he was a simple shepherd (although the unusual Hebrew word could mean he tended cattle also) and a “dresser” of sycamore trees. The “sycamore” here was a large tree which bore a fig-like fruit and also provided good timber. In order to ensure a good crop, the gardener had to slit the top of each fig and this is presumably implied by the rare word “dresser” of sycamores.

“The Lord took me from following the flock, and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.” If Amos was prophesying, it was simply in response to instructions which God had given him. He has been made a different kind of shepherd for a flock that is straying far from the Lord.

He then proceeds to utter a savage prophecy against the priest Amaziah, even though Amaziah had told Amos not to prophesy, which was, in fact, telling the prophet to disobey God.

There are four points in his prophecy:

1, Amaziah will be exiled to Gentile, “unclean” and idolatrous territory where his ceremonial purity as a priest will be defiled

2, his sons and daughters will be slaughtered,

3, he will lose his family estate,

4, his wife will be reduced to prostitution in order to survive.

And he repeats again the prophecy he had made earlier: the people of Israel will be driven into exile, repeating exactly the words Amaziah had attributed to Amos at the beginning of the reading. All of these things, of course, took place.

The reading epitomises the challenging but indispensable role of the prophet. His responsibility is to speak out clearly the truths he sees, however unpalatable they may be. He is bound to arouse hostility against himself by those who do not want to hear what he has to say. Yet prophets are absolutely essential; we need them, even if we do not like their messages.

There is a distinguished line of prophets in the Old Testament, of whom Amos is an excellent example. But there are also prophets in the New Testament. Jesus was a prophet as was John the Baptist (although usually regarded as the last of the OT prophets). Both died because of the messages they gave in word and deed.

The letters of Paul rank ‘prophets’ very high in the list of charisms in the Church, immediately after ‘apostles‘. “You are Christ’s body and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets… (1 Cor 12:27-28).

Down the centuries there has, thankfully, been a long list of prophets, some of whom fell victims of the Church itself. Even some of those regarded as heretics were prophets in their own way and, while much of what they said was regarded as not in harmony with tradition, they often forced the Church into changing direction. Without Luther and the other Protestant reformers would there have been a Council of Trent? Would there have been a Counter-Reformation?

The Second Vatican Council, too, produced many prophetic voices which led to insights not dreamed of by its first organisers. One example was Bishop Helder Camrara of Recife in Brazil. He was once credited with saying: “When I give help to the poor, people call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist.” Bishop Camara was a prophet.

One thinks, too, of Bishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador or of the Baptist pastor, Martin Luther King. In one case, a prophetic voice for the downtrodden poor and, in the other, demanding equality for the black people of the United States.

Who are the prophets in our Christian communities today? Do we recognise them? Do we listen to them? May we have many more of them.

Matthew 9:1-8

After the cure of the two demoniacs (yesterday’s Gospel) Jesus and his disciples now re-cross the lake and come into his own town. This refers not to Nazareth but to Capernaum, which is the centre out of which he operates in Galilee.

As usual with Matthew, he just gives the bare bones of a story which is told in a much more interesting way by Mark. Matthew concentrates on what Jesus says and does. He leaves out the details.

Some people brought a paralysed man lying on a mat to Jesus. Moved by their faith in him, Jesus says to the man, “Have courage, son, your sins are forgiven.” In Mark’s version the degree of the man’s faith is indicated by him being carried up on to the roof of the house by some friends and being let down through the roof at the feet of Jesus. Matthew says nothing about this.

The man was probably not expecting to hear Jesus mention his sins. As far as he was concerned, that was not the reason he had come to Jesus. Some scribes nearby were surprised too and even shocked. “The man is speaking blasphemously,” they thought.

Fully aware of what they were thinking, Jesus asked them: “Which is less trouble to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Stand up and walk’.” Obviously, it is much easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven.” How can you know if it has taken place? But Jesus goes on: “To help you realise that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he then spoke to the paralysed man - “Stand up! Roll up your mat, and go home.”

And the man did just that: he rolled up his mat and walked out of the house to his home.

The people around were awestruck and praised God for giving such authority to human beings. They did not yet fully recognise the identity of Jesus but they did realise that God was acting before their very eyes. The scribes for their part were reduced to silence. Matthew’s use of the word ‘men’ seems to point to the power of Jesus being passed on to his followers - his power to heal and to forgive.

To understand this story we need to be aware of the close links that the people of the time saw between sickness and sin. Sickness, especially a chronic sickness, was often seen as a punishment for sin, either the sin of the person himself or of a parent. We remember, in John’s gospel (chapter 9), how the people asked Jesus if the man was born blind because of his own sin or the sin of his parents. Similarly, after Jesus had healed a man crippled for 38 years, he told him not so sin again, for fear something worse might befall him (John 5:14).

In telling the paralysed man that his sins were forgiven Jesus was going to the root of his problem. We can probably say that sin in some form or other is at the root of all our problems. Jesus had been challenged for telling the man his sins were forgiven. To prove that he had the power to do this, he cured the man’s paralysis, which, in the minds of the onlookers, was the result of his sin. If there was no more paralysis, which was caused by sin, then the sin had been taken away too.

Nowadays, we do not see something like paralysis or a physical handicap as a punishment from God. We do not believe that God works like that. On the other hand it is likely that many health problems which we have can be linked with a disharmony in our lives arising from a conflict between what we are truly meant to be and what we tend to be. We refer to some sicknesses as ‘dis-eases’. They are the result of harmful stress when we are out of harmony with ourselves, with other people and with our environment. In that sense, we can see a clear link between sin and sickness.

Perhaps if we looked at our own lives we might see that some of our physical and mental ailments are due to a lack of harmony between God and others and our surroundings. Let’s think about that today.

Week 13 | Friday

Amos 8:4-6, 9-12

Today’s reading is part of the “Fourth vision: the basket of ripe fruit”.

Ideally, in a world of great prosperity all should be enjoying its fruits. Experience shows us again and again that that is never the case. The denunciations listed by Amos today have an unpleasantly familiar ring - little has changed.

“When will the new moon be over?”, people used to ask. The new moon, like the Sabbath, brought a halt to all commercial transactions. The question was asked by merchants who could not wait for the holy day (devoted to God) to be over so that they could get back into doing business.

“We will diminish the ephah.” The ephah was a standard of measure, a little more than our bushel. So the merchants fiddle with their measuring instruments of buying and selling. They take advantage of the poor and the lowly and shamelessly exploit them. The lowly can be bought for money (”Everyone has his price”) and the poor for even less, a pair of sandals.

Selling even the “refuse of the wheat” reminds one of how tea merchants discovered that tea-leaf dust could be used for teabags! And only the Lord knows what goes into some of our processed foods these days.

At the same time, today many parts of our world, including “ordinary” people, enjoy a level of prosperity not even dreamed of by the rich in former times. The low income worker in North America, Europe and parts of Asia can have his own house, a car, a television set, a video recorder, a refrigerator, a mobile phone and go abroad for summer holidays. Solomon in all his glory did not enjoy such perquisites!

But we also live in a world where hundreds of millions live at appalling and totally unacceptable levels of poverty, deprivation, malnutrition and starvation. Every few seconds, someone dies of hunger, mostly children.

This cannot last, Amos tells the people in the Northern Kingdom. “I will make the sun set at midday,” says the Lord through Amos. The Day of Yahweh is accompanied by cosmic signs: earthquake, solar eclipse. The later prophets enlarge on this, using conventional imagery that must not be taken literally. Darkness, in every sense of the word, will cover the earth.

Celebrations will become times of mourning and songs become lamentations (”By the waters of Babylon, we sat and wept…” Ps 137). As signs of mourning and loss, people will wear sackcloth and have their heads shaved. People will be reduced to destitution and will lose their only son.

A famine is coming but it is not a famine of food and water. It is a famine for hearing God’s word. People will have no sense of direction, “they will wander from sea to sea”. They will seek the word of the Lord and not find it.

This is just what is happening to many - not least the young - in our affluent world. Many have lost a sense of values, a truly moral sense, a sense of integrity and solidarity as they are caught up in the consumerist world of hedonism and pleasure. “If you like it, do it!” They seek pleasure and enjoyment and are surprised that they cannot find happiness.

They forget that happiness is only for the poor in spirit, for the gentle and compassionate, for those who hunger and thirst for justice, for those who are peacemakers, for those ready to suffer for sake of justice and what is right, for those committed to making God‘s Kingdom a reality in our world.

Until they rediscover these truths they will continue to wander from pleasure to pleasure in a search that has no end. But where are they to find the guiding lights that will point them in the right direction? Where are they to go to find him who is the Light of the World, who is the Way, who is Truth and Life? Is it possible that this might be a responsibility for me?

Matthew 9:9-13

The cure of the paralytic is immediately followed by the call of Matthew, named Levi by Mark and Luke in their versions of the story.

Matthew/Levi was an unlikely disciple; he was a tax collector. Tax collectors were among the most despised group of people in Jewish society of the time. Tax collectors never can be particularly popular, given their distasteful job, but in Jesus’ time they were collecting taxes for the hated and pagan colonial ruler. As such they were seen as collaborators and traitors to their own people and to their religion. The Romans had the custom of farming out the collecting of taxes to volunteer agents. These paid up the amount that the Romans demanded and then had to get the money back from the people. In doing so they often collected more than they had paid the Romans. This was their ‘commission’ but there was often an element of extortion and corruption in the whole practice.

Now Jesus invites one of these despised people to be his follower. It is an example of Jesus looking beyond the exterior and the stereotype to the potential of the real person inside. Immediately after this Jesus is seen sitting “in his house” having dinner with his disciples when they are joined by a number of tax collectors and other public sinners. It is not clear whether the ‘his’ refers to the house where Jesus was staying or Matthew’s house. In either event, it was bound to attract the notice of Jesus’ critics.

And indeed some Pharisees, seeing this, are shocked. They ask the disciples (not Jesus): “Why does your master eat with tax collectors and sinners?” If Jesus is a man of God and a teacher, how can he be seen in the company of people who are religiously unclean? To be in their company is to become contaminated and unclean also.

Overhearing them, Jesus replies: “It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick.” And he continues, “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘What I want is mercy, not sacrifice’. And indeed I did not come to call the virtuous but sinners.” Jesus turns the tables on the Pharisees by looking at the situation from a completely different perspective.

The problem is not of Jesus becoming contaminated by the sinful and the unclean but rather their becoming healed by his presence and influence. The legally minded (the ritualists) are only interested in themselves; those governed by love (the merciful) think primarily of the needs of their brothers and sisters. There is no need for Jesus to spend time with the virtuous, with the already converted; it is those in spiritual and moral deprivation with whom he needs to spend his time.

The lesson of today’s reading is extremely relevant for our own day. When looking for potential followers of Christ where do we tend to look? How many times have we heard people wonder why God picked them as Christian leaders - as priests, religious or lay people? When we look at the 12 apostles, they were indeed a strange bunch. Full of faults, fragile in their faith but in the end they started something extraordinary.

And is it not true that a great deal of our pastoral energies in our churches are directed at the already converted? Is it not true that those most in need of experiencing Christ’s love and healing are never touched by us? How many places in our inner cities do we as Christians avoid because they are “not suitable” for “good Catholics”? Where is the presence of Christ visible in our bars, discos, and other places of entertainment?

Week 13 | Saturday

Amos 9:11-15

Today we have our final reading from Amos. It deals with the happiness that messianic times will bring. It raises a hope underlying Amos’ words, one that runs through the whole Hebrew Testament from Gen 3:15 on: God will bring blessing after judgement and will not ultimately reject Israel.

After many denunciations of hypocritical religion and unjust treatment of the poor, the prophet concludes on an upbeat note of hope for the future. The promises for the future include the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, material prosperity and the homeland recovered for ever. The day is coming when the Lord will raise up again the “fallen hut” of David, which had come on hard times and was continually being humiliated by outsider conquerors while being unfaithful, idolatrous and corrupt within its own borders.

He says the “hut” rather than the “house” perhaps to remind us of the humble beginnings of David, the shepherd boy who was picked out by God to succeed Saul as king of God’s people. Or perhaps it is an image of a once proud dynasty fallen on sad times.

And “I…will rebuild it as in the days of old”, that is, as it was in the glorious days of David and Solomon. Then they will conquer the “remnant of Edom”, what is left of Israel’s bitter enemy, and “all the nations that bear my name”. This will be the extent of the rule of Yahweh’s anointed future King, recalling the many nations surrounding Israel over which David reigned. Somewhere in the future, the ruins of Israel will be rebuilt and unfinished battles over enemies will be completed and former subjects will once come under the rule of David’s house. It will be a time of prosperity and abundance.

“Yes, days are coming.” After all the forecasts of destruction, hardship and death, Amos’ final words picture a glorious prosperity like a new Eden, when the seasons will run together so that sowing and reaping are without interval, and there will be a continuous supply of fresh produce, and the hills will run with an abundance of wine, so unlike the times of suffering and invasion. God’s people will return to their own lands from which they will never again be taken.

There is no time scale given for this. It is really a statement of hope and confidence in God’s caring for his people and a call for them to behave in a way that shows they truly belong to him. It is a prophecy which was fulfilled but in a very different way by the coming Jesus, David’s descendant as King and Lord, whose kingdom will never end.

Whatever the circumstances of our lives, we, too, look forward to a time of a never-ending happiness when we are totally united with the God for whom we were made. Our hearts are restless until they can find rest in Him.

Matthew 9:14-17

Today’s reading follows on yesterday’s challenge of Jesus by some Pharisees. On that occasion they asked why Jesus was eating with sinners and outcasts. Now they go one step further and ask why he is eating at all. They put forward the example of John the Baptist and his disciples who used to fast regularly. Jews were only required to fast one day in the year, on the feast of Atonement. However, like the Pharisees, it seems that John’s disciples used to observe fasts which were not prescribed by the Law in the hope that their extra devotion would bring about an early coming of the Kingdom.

Jesus answers their question in two ways:

First, people do not fast when they are in the company of the bridegroom. That is a time for celebration. By implication, of course, Jesus is the groom. As long as he is around, it would be inappropriate for his disciples to fast. However, he says a time will come when the groom is no longer with them and then there will be reasons to fast.

His second answer is more profound and takes the form of two examples. It does not make sense to repair an old piece of clothing with a patch of new cloth. The new cloth, being much tougher, will under stress only cause the older cloth to tear. In the second example, he says that it is not wise to put new wine into old wineskins. Wine was kept in containers made of leather. Because new wine was still fermenting and expanding it needed to be put in new leather bags which were resilient and could expand with the wine. The old bags would be already stretched and new wine would only cause them to burst. Then both the wine would be lost and the bags ruined.

What did Jesus mean by these images? He was giving a clear message to his critics. Jesus’ ideas were like new wine or new cloth. They could not be fitted into old containers. People like the Pharisees were trying to fit Jesus’ teaching and his ideas into their ways of thinking. It would not work.

Clearly, the old garment and the old wineskins represented Judaism in so far as it contained elements which were being replaced. The new cloth and the new wine are the spirit of Kingdom as proclaimed by Jesus. The ex gratia devotions of the Pharisees and John’s disciples were like patches on old cloth or new wine in old wineskins, trying to put life into something that was giving way to a totally new order. The new wine that Jesus brought involved what we would call now a paradigm shift, a radically new understanding of how God was to be loved and served.

So John’s disciples wanted to know, for example, why Jesus was not fasting. Because, in their book, a Jew fasted and a pious Jew fasted more often. But Jesus did not measure religion by external actions like fasting or keeping other requirements of the law (such as washing hands before eating, etc). For him religion was a matter of the inner spirit as we saw in his deeper interpretations of the Law during the Sermon on the Mount.

Over the centuries the Church has moved its position in many areas as it reaches a deeper understanding of the faith and how it is to be lived in a changing world. Such a movement took place with the Second Vatican Council. It involved much more than external changes (like having the Mass in the vernacular instead of Latin). It involved a whole new way of seeing our faith and our place as Christians in the world.

There are still, however, people who try to live in the post-Vatican II Church with a pre-Vatican II mentality. It is like trying to squeeze new wine in old wineskins. It is a source of much friction and misunderstandings in many Christian communities. We all have an obligation both to enter fully into the mind of Christ as presented in the New Testament and into the mind of the Church in this post-Vatican II era.

Week 14 | Monday

Hos 2:16-18, 21-22

Today we begin reading from another prophet - Hosea. Hosea belonged to Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and began his prophetic career in the last years of Jeroboam II (786-746 BC). Some believe that he was a priest, others that he was a cult prophet but the only information on his life comes from this book.

He was a man of great feeling and could go from anger to extreme tenderness. The prophecy is built around his difficult marriage to Gomer and this affected and deepened his teaching. Gomer was guilty of adultery (very humiliating to any husband but especially in those times) and comes to symbolise the sinful Israel. And just as Hosea could not give up his wife in spite of her infidelity so neither could Yahweh abandon Israel who was betrothed to him in spite of her faithlessness and treatment of the poor. There would be punishment but its purpose was to heal and restore the first love.

In fact, it was Hosea who began the tradition of describing the relations between Yahweh and Israel in terms of marriage and this is taken up in the New Testament by Paul and John.

Today’s passage is full of tenderness and a spirit of reconciliation. God speaks to Israel, his chosen people. “I will allure her,” says the Lord speaking of Israel, in the same way that a young man tries to attract the attentions of the young girl on whom he has set his eyes.

He wants to lead his people into the desert for, in the eyes of Hosea, like Amos before him, the years the Israelites spent in the desert were idyllic times when the people had a particularly close relationship with their Lord. Israel was then childlike, knowing nothing of pagan gods, loyal to Yahweh whose presence was manifest in the cloud. (In fact, it was not quite as idyllic as all that but we know how nostalgia, especially nationalistic nostalgia, can romanticise the past.)

Then, says the prophet, Israel will respond as she did in those early days of her existence, “when she came up from the land of Egypt”. Just as Gomer had treated her husband Hosea, so Israel has behaved like an unfaithful wife but now she will come back to Yahweh, her spouse, who, of course, has always been faithful to her.

“On that day, she shall call me ‘My husband’, and never again ‘My baal’.” There is an ironic play on words here. For a long time, the word ‘baal’ which means ‘master’ was applied to husbands and also to God. It had been from ancient times an element in certain proper names, without any idolatrous significance. Yahweh was the ‘master’ to whom the bearer of the name was thus dedicated.

But, after the corrupting influences of the Canaanites, the word ‘Baal’ came to be identified in people’s minds with the Canaanite gods. There was such a vigorous reaction against that worship that this Hebrew word for “master” was no longer be used of the Lord. So verse 19 (not in our reading) says: “Then I will remove from her mouth the names of the Baals [signifying the idols], so that they shall no longer be invoked.”

And then the Lord will take Israel back as his spouse forever. He will adorn his bride with right and justice. “I will espouse you to me forever.” Yahweh takes back his unfaithful wife with the fervour of first love and showers her with spiritual gifts - with right and justice, with love and mercy.

‘Right’ and ‘justice’ are two terms dear to Hosea and are used by him especially to condemn the popular social injustice and corruption of the legal processes. Here they mean right conduct in general.

The primary meaning of the word ‘love’ (hesed) is that of a bond, or contract. When used of human relationships it comes to mean friendship, union, loyalty, especially when these are the outcome of a treaty or formal agreement.

Used of God, the term refers to his faithfulness to his covenant and the kindness he therefore shows his chosen people (in Ex 34:6). Used by Hosea in the context of married love, the word assumes and from then on retains a still warmer significance: it means the tender love God has for his people and the benefits deriving from it.

But this divine hesed calls for corresponding hesed in man towards Yahweh, consisting of self-giving, loving trust, abandonment, deep affection, ‘piety’, a love (in short) which is a joyful submission to the will of God and an active charity to fellow men. This ideal, expressed in many of the Psalms, will later be that of the Hasidim, or ‘Hasidaeans’, cf. 1 Macc 2:42ff (where, however, it takes rather extreme forms).

“I will espouse you in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord.” ‘Know’ here means much more than an intellectual knowing. It implies a deep and intimate relationship of love and unity. God ‘makes himself known’ to man when he engages himself to him by covenant and shows his love (hesed) for him by the benefits he confers. The word ‘know’ is used in the Bible sometimes to express sexual unity as when Mary told the angel that she “did not ‘know’ a man” but it also refers to active acknowledgement of a covenant partner.

Similarly, man ‘knows God’ when he loyally observes God’s covenant, shows gratitude for God’s gifts, and returns love for love. In the wisdom literature ‘knowledge’ in this sense and ‘wisdom’ are practically synonymous. The two words ‘know’ and hesed are closely interlinked.

Passages like this, of course, are laying the ground for the love of God for us which was shown in such a dramatic fashion by Jesus, the Incarnate love of God. The whole of the Gospel is suffused with this love and we are called to be filled with that love which is extended to God, to every single person without exception and also to ourselves.

Matthew 9:18-26

There is a great contrast in the way Matthew tells this double story compared to Mark.

Matthew strips it down to the bare details. The 20 verses that Mark needs are reduced here to 9. He makes no mention of the large crowd that was following Jesus; only his disciples are present. He concentrates on Jesus and on what Jesus does and says.

A synagogue official approaches Jesus and says that his daughter has just died. He is in fact the head of the synagogue and in Mark and Luke we learn that his name is Jairus. In Mark’s version, the girl is seriously ill and only dies later in the story. “Please come and lay your hand on her and she will come back to life.” It is an extraordinary act of faith in the power of Jesus. Up to this he had not brought anyone back from the dead.

As Jesus and his disciples were on the way to the house, a woman who had suffered from a bleeding problem for 12 years unobtrusively touched the hem of Jesus’ garment. “If only I can touch his cloak, I shall get well.” Again, we are presented with a deep faith and trust in Jesus’ power.

This was really the only way this unfortunate woman could approach Jesus with other people around. Her bleeding was not only a physical ailment. It also involved ritual uncleanness and she was not supposed to be in close contact with people. If they had known, they might have done something terrible to her. Nor, for the same reason, could she approach Jesus openly about her problem, so she quietly touched the hem of his robe. She trusted that that would be enough and she was right.

Jesus, realising she had touched his garment, turned and said kindly, “Courage, daughter! Your faith has made you whole again.” And the bleeding stops instantly.

We now go back to the original story. As Jesus and his disciples approach the house they find a large crowd of mourners, many of them wailing and weeping in the fashion still common in West, South and East Asia. Jesus tells them all to go away. “The little girl is not dead; she is asleep.” At which, the crowd laughed at him. Whether the girl was actually dead or was simply in some kind of death-like coma does not really matter. As far as everyone around was concerned she was dead.

Jesus went into the house, took the girl by the hand and she “arose”. There are overtones of resurrection in the word “arose”.

In both these stories, using the literary device of ‘inclusion’ with one story wrapped inside another, we have a common theme of Jesus as Lord of life. It is Matthew’s way of saying what we read in John: “I am the resurrection and the life.” That life is to be understood in the fullest possible sense involving the physical, social, intellectual and spiritual.

In one story the girl is not only given back her physical life but is restored to the bosom of her family and all that means. In the other story, not only is the woman’s haemorrhage stopped but she can be fully reinstated into normal relationships with the people around her. She is in a very real sense made whole again.

Let us today pray for Jesus to heal us and make us whole, the wholeness that is holiness, the holiness that is wholeness.

Week 14 | Tuesday

Hos 8:4-7, 11-13

Hosea is in a very different mood today from yesterday. He makes a scathing attack on the idolatrous practices of the Northern Kingdom (referred to here also as ‘Israel‘, ‘Samaria’ and ‘Ephraim’), when they set up kings without the Lord’s approval.

This passage refers to the dynastic upheavals of Israel’s declining days. Between the death of Jeroboam II and the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians, a matter of some 25 years, there were four separate dynasties on the throne and as many murdered kings. In fact, after Jeroboam II there were five kings in 13 years and three of them took power violently. They were certainly not God’s choice.

Worse still, they melted down their silver and gold to make false gods, a move that could only bring the downfall of the people. “Cast away, your calf, O Samaria!”. Jeroboam I (930-909 BC) had set up golden calves in the shrines of Bethel and Dan and told the people, “These are your gods”. “But not your God,” says Hosea. “Get rid of them!” is the Lord’s command.

The prophet then quotes a proverb that we still hear today: “When they sow the wind, they will reap the whirlwind.” One evil leads to something much worse. And another: “The stalk of grain that forms no ear can yield no flour.” Another familiar proverb about the results of doing evil. In the Hebrew there is a play on the similar-sounding words for ‘stalk’ and ‘flour’.

Israel sowed the wind of idolatry and reaped the whirlwind of Assyria. And, even if it did produce flour, it would be devoured by the stranger, namely, the Assyrians. Israel will be swallowed up and, among the nations, become of no value. The idolatry of the people, their turning their backs to their God in favour of idols will lead to the disaster of the Assyrian invasion and their deportation into exile.

They made many altars to appease Baal but only committed even greater sins in doing so.

Meanwhile the very ordinances of God are seen now as something foreign. They go through the motions of offering sacrifices and eating the victims as a sign of participation and unity but God knows their hearts are far from him. Some of the sacrifices were partly eaten by the offerer and priests as a sign of the sacrifice’s union with the god. There was no such union, of course, nor could there be with man-made idols.

God is mindful of their guilt because of their idolatrous practices and recourse to impotent gods. They shall be punished by “returning to Egypt”. To go back to Egypt was to go back into foreign bondage as was the case before the Exodus. Now the slavery and bondage is under the Assyrian ruler who will carry them off into exile.

We might ask ourselves two questions today, arising out of these readings:

How sincere is my offering of myself to God and to Jesus when I celebrate the Eucharist? Is my daily life truly an expression of what I am doing in the church?

Secondly, what are the gods in my life? And do they impede service of my Creator God?

Matthew 9:32-38

We come today to the end of the section (chaps 8-9) recounting ten miracles of Jesus. The last single miracle described is that of a man whose deafness is arises from his being possessed by a demon. It follows immediately the cure of two blind men, a story which we did not read and which is told again by Matthew in chap. 20. It seems to correspond to the healing of the blind man Bartimaeus in Mark (chap. 10), although there are significant differences.

The man is brought to Jesus by the people. Jesus drives out the demon and the man immediately is able to speak. There is a double reaction. The people are astounded: “Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!” The implications of Jesus’ divine origins are very clear. On the other hand, Pharisees were saying, “It is through the prince of devils that he casts out devils.” Elsewhere Jesus will show the absurd illogicality of that charge.

Stories of blindness, deafness and dumbness in the Gospel always have a deeper meaning. Far more serious than physical blindness, deafness and dumbness are being spiritually blind, deaf and dumb. The Pharisees in the Gospel represent such people and we see it happening in this story. They are blind because they cannot see or do not want to see God at work in Jesus; they are deaf because they do not hear or do not want to understand what he says. And they are also dumb because they cannot speak the words of life that Jesus gives them.

The very same can happen to each one of us. Let us pray today to be able to see clearly, to understand what God says to us and to be able to share it with others.

This section of Matthew concludes with a general description or summary of what Jesus was doing. He was going through all the towns and villages of Galilee; he was teaching in synagogues; he was proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom; and he was healing all kinds of diseases and sickness.

But, behind all that he does, is his deep compassion for the needs of the people. He sees them harassed and dejected, wandering and aimless like sheep without a guiding shepherd – a familiar image in the Old Testament (cf. Ezekiel 34). Then, looking at his disciples, he says, “The harvest is rich but the labourers are few, so ask the Lord of the harvest to send labourers to his harvest.” Jesus cannot do it all on his own. In fact, he will hardly step outside the boundaries of Palestine. He needs many helpers.

Today, the situation has not changed. The harvest is as big as ever; people are as lost and rudderless as they have ever been in spite of the great strides in knowledge we have made. Where are the labourers? They are not just the bishops, priests, religious brothers and sisters. That is a very narrow concept of labourers. Every single baptised person is called, in some way, to be a harvester, to help people find and experience the truth and love that God gives in Jesus. Every single person, in that sense and it is a very real sense, has a vocation, a call to serve and to build the Kingdom.

What and where and with whom is my vocation?

Week 14 | Wednesday

Hos 10:1-3, 7-8, 12

Like Harold McMillan’s Britain, Israel under Jeroboam II (793-753) “never had it so good”. The Northern Kingdom is called ‘Israel’ after the name of its ancestor and it is described as a “luxuriant vine”, which was a frequent metaphor for Israel.

But, as we so often see happening in our own world, the good life does not result in moral living. Quite the opposite, in fact, is the norm. We have only to look at our own “western” world in North America, Europe and parts of Asia.

“The more abundant his (i.e. Israel’s) fruit, the more altars… the more sacred pillars he set up.” How true! The greater the prosperity, the higher the standard of living, the more idols are erected, things which people use all their energies in worshipping and pursuing.

But the people’s “hearts are false”, their “hearts” are in the wrong place. Their heart is divided between worship of Yahweh and the Baals or hesitating between Egypt and Assyria for their alliances. Israel formally calls on God but it dishonours him through its worship of idols. But God will “break down these altars and destroy these sacred pillars”.

The values of truth, love and justice do not belong in the world of unlimited materialism, consumerism, hedonism, uninhibited sexual indulgence, fashion, status, success, power…

In fact, in so far as they are denials of truth and love and justice they will ultimately collapse because of their inbuilt contradictions for they are essentially opposed to people’s deepest aspirations, aspirations planted in our very being by our Creator.

“If only they would say, ‘We have no king’”, where ‘king’ refers to the idol they have set up to worship. “What can the king do for them?” The prophet’s question is rhetorical and requires no answer.

Little do they realise in the midst of their prosperity that the king of Samaria, namely the calf-idol, is doomed to disappear “like foam upon the waters”. Similarly, the “high places of Aven”, that is, the idolatrous shrine at Bethel, the “sin of Israel”, will meet with destruction and its altars overgrown with weeds.

They will be terrible days indeed when the people will call out for the hills to cover them and fall on them. Cries of utter despair quoted by Jesus when speaking to the women who sympathised with him as he carried his cross to Calvary. “Don’t cry for me but for yourselves and your children. For the days are coming when people will say, ‘How lucky are the women who never bore children [normally regarded as a terrible shame]… That will be the time when people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills ‘Hide us!’ (Luke 23:28-30), referring to the coming destruction of Jerusalem. It is also cited in Revelation (6:16) in the context of the cosmic upheaval accompanying the coming of the ‘Day of the Lord’.

But there is a way out, if the people change their ways and begin to plant justice, a justice where all share equitably in the resources available and to reap the fruits that come from deeply loving and compassionate hearts. It is time now to plough new furrows in what has up to now been fallow and unproductive ground and go in search of God, becoming instead productive and fruitful. We remember what Jesus said would happen to the vine tree whose branches did not bear fruit.

It is for us to ask ourselves today to what extent we have been carried away by the affluence of our societies and the prevailing values (or lack thereof).

Let us think about ploughing a new field in our own lives and work to produce the fruit that matters, the fruit that lasts. Fruit that not only we ourselves can enjoy but which can be shared with others.

Matthew 10:1-7

We begin today the second of the five discourses of Jesus which are a unique feature of Matthew’s gospel. It consists of instructions to Jesus’ disciples on how they are to conduct their missionary work and the reactions they can expect in carrying it out.

It begins by the summoning of the inner circle of twelve disciples. Matthew presumes we already know about their formal selection, which he does not recount. (Mark and Luke clearly distinguish the selection from the later missioning.) These twelve disciples are now called apostles.

The two words are distinct in meaning and we should not confuse them. A disciple (Latin discipulus, from discere, to learn) is a follower, someone who learns from a teacher and assimilates that teaching into his own life. An apostle (Greek apostolos from apostello) is someone who is sent out on a mission, someone who is deputed to disseminate the teaching of the master to others. In the New Testament a distinction is made between the two. All the gospels, for instance, speak of the Twelve Apostles and Luke mentions 72 Disciples.

However, that does not mean the two roles are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, all of us who are called to be disciples are also expected to be apostles, actively sharing our faith with others. It is very easy for us to see ourselves, ‘ordinary’ Catholics, as disciples and to regard priests and religious as doing the apostolic work of the Church. That would be very wrong. Every one of us called to be a disciple is eo ipso, in virtue of Baptism and Confirmation, also called to be an apostle.

Applied to the twelve men (yes, they were all men – and thereby hang many disputes!) the word ‘apostle’ does have a special sense. They would become, so to speak, the pillars or foundations on which the new Church would be built, with Peter as their leader. They would have the special role of handing on and interpreting the tradition they had received from Jesus, a role which in turn they handed on to what we now call the bishops, with the pope, as leader and spokesperson.

Later on, Paul would be added to their number and Matthias would be chosen to replace the renegade Judas. In fact, it is interesting to see the mixed bunch of people that Jesus chose. We know next to nothing about most of them but they were for the most part simple people, some of them definitely uneducated and perhaps even illiterate. Judas may well have been the most qualified among them. And yet we see the extraordinary results they produced and the unstoppable movement they set in motion. The only explanation is that it was ultimately the work of God through the Holy Spirit.

The first instructions they are given are to confine their activities to their own people. They are not to go to pagans at this stage or even to the Samaritans. As the heirs to the covenant and as God’s people, the Jews are to be the first to be invited to follow the Messiah and experience his saving power. And their proclamation is the same one that Jesus gave at the outset of his public preaching: “The Kingdom of Heaven [i.e. of God] is at hand.”

Week 14 | Thursday

Hos 11:1, 3-4, 8-9

This lovely chapter on the relationship between Yahweh and Israel corresponds to 2:4-25, part of which we read on Monday, though here Israel is not the beloved, unfaithful wife, but rather the child ungrateful for all the love he has received.

“When Israel was a child, I loved him.” For Hosea the beginnings of Israel’s history begins with dark days of slavery in Egypt and the liberation of the Exodus. As we saw before, he sees the long journey through the desert as a golden age in Israel’s relations with Yahweh. He does not seem to know or ignores some of the great incidents of the earlier patriarchal period.

The imagery, too, as mentioned, changes from Israel as the unfaithful spouse to that of the ungrateful child. And that “childhood” is seen as beginning with the liberation from Egypt.

“Out of Egypt I called my son”, is the loving expression of that liberation. It is used by Matthew (2:15) in his gospel as a foretelling of Jesus returning from the flight into Egypt back to Galilee.

But it is a call that is now being spurned more and more. “The more I called them the farther they went from me.” (Incidentally, is there an image of this in the parable of the Prodigal Son?) Instead, they sacrificed to Baals and burned incense to idols. These are seen as acts of total ingratitude. For “it was I who taught Ephraim [another name for the Northern Kingdom, Israel] to walk” in the Lord’s way. It was Yahweh who took Israel lovingly in his arms. It would be difficult to find a more tender image of Yahweh in the whole of the Hebrew Testament.

“I drew them with human cords, with bands of love” indicates a truly intimate and loving relationship. Yahweh does not force them as one leading draft animals but draws them to himself with gentleness and affection. “I fostered them, i.e. the people of Israel-Ephraim, like one who raises an infant to his cheeks.” Could one find a more gentle and touching image, picture a more tender scene of love between father and child?

In spite of that, “though I stooped to feed my child, they did not know I was their healer”, that I was the One - and not the Baals - who made them whole, who fulfilled the deepest needs of their lives. The tender love of the father is spurned and brushed aside.

In other passages of the Old Testament where God’s reaching out to his people is spurned, the response of the prophet is to speak of Yahweh’s rage, anger, vengeance and the threat of terrible punishment. Here God’s reaction is shown as altogether different.

“How could I give you up, O Ephraim; deliver you up, O Israel?” How could Yahweh treat Israel, his beloved child, with the fate of Admah and Zeboiim, two cities which were destroyed with Sodom and Gomorrah (mentioned in Deut 29:22)?

On the contrary, his “heart is overwhelmed, [his] pity is stirred”. Yahweh is angry with his child but he will not destroy him again. The reaction is less of anger than one of grief and of compassion for a people who do not know the significance of what they are doing.

And the reason is very clear: “For I am God and not man.” Although Israel has revealed the unreliability of the human character, God will not be untrue to the love he has shown toward Israel. Israel will be chastised but not destroyed. Yahweh is “the Holy One present among you”. He will not stoop to human ways of reacting. This is a breakthrough in Old Testament thinking; something quite new.

It is normal for us humans to hit back when we are rejected, humiliated and insulted. We call it being “only human”. And it is understandable to project our ways of behaviour on God. But our God is not “only human”. He transcends our tendency to react emotionally. He rather sees the weakness and the blindness of the one who rejects and insults. God does not need to defend himself or his good name. Nothing can change that. He thinks only of the one who is showing hurt in trying to hurt another.

We can see this demonstrated so clearly in the whole life of Jesus, who is “the Holy One present among us” and most clearly in his Passion. He it was he who told us to “turn the other cheek” and to pray for our enemies and those out to destroy us and who showed us the way by his own example. We are called to go beyond being merely “human”, that is, yielding blindly to our feelings and to operate out of a deeper level of understanding and from a position of inner security which does not need to hit back or to lower oneself to the level of the attacker.

Today’s passage should be an inspiration for us to try to become more and more like our God, with the help of the example of Jesus’ life. It is this frame of mind that Jesus urges on us when he says: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48) or as it is put in Luke’s gospel: “Be compassionate as your heavenly Father is compassionate” (Luke 6:36).

Let us react less in brittle anger and touchiness and reach out more in compassion to those who can only relate out of fear and insecurity of which their abusive language or anger is a symptom.

Matthew 10:7-15

We continue the apostolic discourse of Jesus to his disciples.

Jesus now instructs them on what they are to say and do. They are to proclaim that the kingship of God is close at hand. This, of course, is true because of the presence and work of Jesus. Jesus is himself the very embodiment of the Kingdom, he is the ultimate Kingdom person. The kingship of God is fully present in him. But it will also be present in the Twelve who will do the same things that Jesus is doing: curing the sick, raising the dead, healing lepers, liberating people from evil spirits. Later, we will see the apostles doing all these things in the Acts of the Apostles and the Church continues to do these things.

Today, all of us are called to proclaim the kingship, the lordship of God by our words, actions and lifestyle. The Church is still called to bring healing into people’s lives. We may not raise people literally from the dead; but there many who are virtually dead, though physically alive, and who need to be brought back to a fully human life.

Most of our societies today do not have lepers but we have, in every society, people who are marginalised and pushed out to the fringes. They need to be reintegrated.

There may be people in some places who are genuinely in the possession of evil spirits but there are far more who are in the grip of more mundane demons such as nicotine, alcohol and other drugs, who are caught up in the materialism, consumerism, hedonism and sexism of our time. They too need to be liberated.

Yes, there is a lot of work to be done – each one of us in our own way and in accordance with our gifts and life situation.

Jesus also tells his disciples to travel light. They are not to charge for their service. They are not to find their security in the possession of material things, especially money. To increase their freedom, they should go around with the absolute minimum. In our lives, possessions and our concern about them can be very inhibiting.

Of course, what Jesus does expect is that each person working for the Kingdom has his needs looked after by those he serves. This is where his security lies: in being sure of a place to sleep and food to eat. In return, the missionary brings the Lord’s peace to any home that offers hospitality. This is a vision of a society which is hard to find in our own day, although it is lived in varying degrees of commitment by religious in the Catholic Church and by some followers of other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.

Mother Teresa’s Sisters come pretty close to the Gospel vision as do the Little Sisters/Brothers of Charles de Foucauld. And that is really the meaning of the second half of today’s passage. Mother Teresa once said: “I do own things but they do not own me.” That is where she differed from so many of us.

Jesus expects that the missionary to find a place to stay wherever he goes. And, once he finds one, he should stay there; he is not to be moving around looking for more desirable conditions. On the other hand, Jesus has hard words for those who refuse hospitality to his messengers. Shaking the dust from one’s feet was symbolical. The dust of any Gentile country was regarded as unclean. By implication so was the dust of an inhospitable home. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah will get off more lightly. (In the Middle East hospitality has always been important. Unfortunately, in our security-conscious urban Western world, it does not flourish. Largely, because of those unnecessary possessions which Jesus would liberate us from.)

There are two things for us to reflect on today:

First, where is our security? Are we burdened down by the things we own? Are we owned by them? How free are we to live a fully Christian life as envisioned by the Gospel? How free are we to do the things that Jesus says we should be doing: bringing healing and wholeness into people’s lives?

Secondly, what kind of hospitality do we give to those – whoever they are – who are generously doing the Lord’s work? Or, if they are not Christians, who are doing the work of the Kingdom?

Week 14 | Friday

Hos 14:2-10

Our last reading from Hosea is taken from the final verses of the book. It is a call for repentance and reconciliation of Israel with its God. In return Yahweh makes his promises. The prophecy ends on a note of hope, already heard in some of the passages we heard earlier in the week. It is a liturgical prayer expressing sincere repentance, corresponding to 6:1-6 (which we did not read) and is followed by a firm promise of God’s blessing. It is now time for Israel to return to its God for it has collapsed under the weight of its guilt.

“Take with you words”. Not empty words but words full of meaning and sincerity, words begging for forgiveness, words of true repentance. They will ask for their sins to be set aside and they will go back to offering sacrifices to the one, true God. They will pray: “Forgive all iniquity, and receive what is good, that we may render as offerings the bullocks from our stalls.”

No longer will they put their trust in Assyria nor in “riding horses”, namely, by making expedient treaties with countries like Egypt which can do little for them against the might of Assyria. No longer will they address the words ‘Our god’ to something which they have made themselves. They will instead put their trust in Yahweh, for in him “the orphan finds compassion”. By alienating himself, Israel, as Yahweh’s son, had made himself an orphan.

Yahweh will extend his love “freely” to Israel, without any force or compulsion, for his anger has now been turned away from his wayward son, in spite of the way he has behaved. Without their God, what are the people but pure orphans? Yahweh, we might say, was turning the other cheek, as Jesus, his Son, will later tell us to do.

In a lovely phrase Yahweh “will be like the dew for Israel”, not in the sense of something transitory but as something cool and refreshing, giving life to plants so that Israel “shall blossom like the lily”.

In an image unique in the Old Testament, Hosea compares his people to a tree, to the great Lebanon cedar and the splendid olive tree. A reformed Israel will have the fragrance of the cedar. Then, Ephraim-Israel will have no more to do with idols. He will have been punished for his wrongdoing but prosperity is returning.

Again, in another tree simile, “I (the Lord) am like a verdant cypress tree”. The evergreen cypress was seen as a symbol of life. “Because of me, you, Israel, bear fruit.” Words very similar to those spoken by Jesus to his disciples when he compared himself to the vine (cf. John 15:1-7) enabling its branches to bear fruit.

With the final verse of the book, our reading ends with a reflection which is probably a later addition in the style of the Wisdom literature, but no less valuable for all that:

Straight are the ways of the Lord,

in them the just walk,

but sinners stumble in them.

A thought worth reflecting on. For the just ways of the Lord are the ways to life, the only ways to real life. It was a lesson that Israel had to learn at a high price. Later, Jesus, the Word of God, will say, “I am the Way; I am Truth and Life.”

But to the sinner, the call of God, of Jesus and the Gospel is a serious stumbling block. It gets in the way of all he longs to have and do. It is why so often there are people who want to rid the world of God, of Jesus and the Gospel and also of those who are trying to build their lives on these truths.

Do I experience my Christian faith as a real liberation and source of joy or is it something that seems to get in the way of what I want?

Matthew 10:16-23

Today’s passage clearly reflects later experiences of the Church as, for instance, described in many parts of the Acts of the Apostles and, of course, in the later history of the Church. Matthew’s gospel was written some 50 years after the death and resurrection of Christ and naturally reflects some experiences of this period. It is both a warning and a description of what has happened and continues to happen to the messengers of the Gospel.

We are sent out like sheep among wolves. We are in a way defenceless because we renounce any use of violence. There are wolves out there eager to destroy us because, despite our message of love, justice and peace, we are seen as a threat to their activities and ambitions.

We are to be clever as snakes and innocent as doves. We are to be as inventive and creative as we can be in dealing with the world; but innocent, not in the sense of being naive but in the sense of being completely free of even any suspicion of wrongdoing. The end does not justify the means!

As has happened so many times and continues to happen, followers of Christ, simply because they are his followers and for no other reason, will be hauled into court, will be the victims of intimidation and torture. This is our opportunity to give witness to Christ and everything that the Gospel stands for.

“When they hand you over” – a favourite Gospel expression: John the Baptist was handed over, Jesus himself was handed over first to the leaders of his people and then to the Romans, his disciples too will be and are handed over and, in every Eucharist, we hear that Jesus in his Body is handed over to us (“this is my Body, which is given up [tradetur, handed over] for you”).

When we are ‘handed over’ we are not to be anxious what to say. “You will be given what you are to say.” This has been confirmed again and again by people who have been arrested and interrogated. Not only do they know what to say but very often their fear, too, disappears. So that, once released, they simply go back to what they were doing when they were first arrested. (We see this in the Acts of the Apostles.) “You yourselves will not be the speakers; the Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you.” The enemies of the Gospel have no ultimate answer to truth, love and justice.

The last words of Jesus are sad because they are true. The following of Christ can break up families. They betray each other, hand each other over. Once baptised, we enter a new family with new obligations. Our commitment to God, to love, to truth, to justice, to freedom transcends obligations that arise from blood. I cannot obey a father who tells me to violate the Gospel; I cannot cooperate with a brother who urges me to do evil. It involves painful choices but the opposite would be, in the long run, worse.

“You will be hated by all on account of me.” It is a saying we can sometimes find difficult to accept. It is difficult to understand that the following of the loving and loveable Jesus can create such hostility and hatred.

“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next.” We need to be clear that Jesus never tells us to go out of our way to seek persecution or to be hated. On the contrary, we are to make Christianity as attractive as possible. We want people to share our experience of knowing and being loved by Christ. One of the reasons why the Church spread so rapidly throughout the Roman world was precisely because of Christians fleeing from persecution. There comes a time, however, when we can run no further, or when it is clear we have to take a stand and cannot compromise.

Week 14 | Saturday

Isa 6:1-8

On the last day of this week we begin readings from the prophet Isaiah and they will continue until Friday of next week inclusive.

Isaiah was one of the greatest prophets in the Old Testament who appeared at a critical period in the history of Israel. The Northern Kingdom (also called Israel, Ephraim or Samaria) had collapsed under attacks from the Assyrians, then Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem in the Southern Kingdom (Judah). Previous to this, in the year 742 BC, when Uzziah, king of Judah died, Isaiah was called to be a prophet in the Temple of Jerusalem. His mission covered three periods during the reigns of Kings Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah.

The Book of Isaiah, as we have it in our Bibles today, is divided into three parts:

The first part (chapters 1-39) are attributed to Isaiah and some of his disciples;

The second part (chapters 40-55), also known as Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah) are thought to have been written by an anonymous poet who wrote much later, towards the end of the exile in Babylon. The passages from Isaiah we read in Holy Week, e.g. about the Suffering Servant, come from this part

The third part (chapters 55-66) consists of oracles from a later period and composed by disciples who wrote in the spirit of Isaiah.

We will just be taking selected passages from the first part. Other parts of Isaiah are read at other times of the year, especially during Advent and Lent.

But before we start at the beginning of the book, in chapter 1, on Monday, we read today Isaiah’s solemn call by God to be a prophet. This is not recorded until chapter 6 where it fittingly introduces the “Book of Immanuel”, which consists of a series of oracles relating to the war between Syria and Ephraim (the Northern Israelite Kingdom).

Isaiah’s commission as a prophet probably preceded his preaching ministry but the account was postponed to serve as a climax to the opening series of oracles and to provide a warrant for the shocking announcements of judgement they contain. The people had mocked the “Holy One of Israel” (5:19), and now Yahweh has commissioned Isaiah to call them to account. This passage is generally accepted as being a truly majestic piece of high literary quality.

The experience took place in the year King Uzziah died. This happened in the year 740, at the end of an 11-year reign. Uzziah, also known as Azariah, had been a good and powerful king. But when he insisted on burning incense in the temple, he was struck with leprosy (or some other chronic skin ailment) which lasted till his death.

Isaiah begins by saying that he saw the Lord on a high and lofty throne. It is understood to be an internal vision which probably took place in the Temple, though it could refer to the heavenly temple. The train of the Lord’s robe, a long, flowing garment almost filled the holy place. This was the sanctuary, the Hekal, the chamber leading into the Debir or ‘Holy of Holies’

Looking down on God’s throne are six-winged seraphim. Isaiah is the first to introduce these beings to the Hebrew Testament. The Hebrew root underlying the word means “burn”, perhaps indicating their purity as God’s ministers. They may also correspond to the cherubs on the Ark of the Covenant. With one pair of wings they cover their faces in reverence so that they will not look directly at God; with another pair they modestly veil their feet and this is understood to refer euphemistically to their sexual organs; with the third pair they remained hovered in flight, indicating their eagerness to be in God’s service.

They all sing in chorus, “Holy, holy, holy, All the earth is filled with his glory”. Words which have been transposed into our Eucharistic liturgy. The triple “Holy” emphasises the unique holiness of God, whose outer manifestation is his glory. It is a favourite epithet of Isaiah who frequently refers to God as “the Holy One of Israel”. This divine sanctity requires man himself to be sanctified i.e. separated from everything profane, purified from sin, sharing in the ‘justice’ of God. “Full of his glory”: elsewhere in the Hebrew Testament the worldwide glory of God is linked with his miraculous signs:

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
who alone does wondrous deeds.
And blessed forever be his glorious name;
may the whole earth be filled with his glory.
Amen. Amen. (Ps 72:18-19)

As they sing, the doorframe shakes and the building is filled with smoke, a sure sign of God’s presence, reminiscent of Mount Sinai in the past and of Pentecost later on. And as the power of God’s voice terrified the Israelites at Mt Sinai, when the mountain was covered with smoke, so Isaiah is understandably overcome with fear and trepidation.

“Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” Fully aware of his sinfulness, he has come face to face with Yahweh. It was universally believed by the Israelites that anyone who saw God face to face would immediately die. “No man sees me and still lives,” says Exodus (33:20). Jacob was a privileged exception when he struggled with the angel at Peniel: “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared” (Gen 32:31). As was Moses: “The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one man speaks to another” (Exod 33:11). The Transfiguration, in which Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus, was a similar theophany (Matt 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:2-36).

At that moment, one of the seraphim took a burning ember from the altar and touched Isaiah’s mouth with it, signifying his mandate to speak on Yahweh’s behalf. The live coal is holy because Yahweh has sanctified the altar from which it is taken. Coals of fire were taken inside the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, when sacrifice was made to atone for sin. Fire, too, is normally associated with Yahweh in the theophanies of Sinai. But that was a destroying fire (”The glory of the Lord was seen as a consuming fire on the mountaintop”); here it is purifying, as in the case of Jesus of whom John the Baptist says: “He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt 3:11). Fire too will accompany the Israelites at night as they wander through the desert and tongues of fire will symbolise the presence of the Spirit on Jesus’ disciples.

Now the fiery coal fire removes Isaiah’s sin and makes him fit to be the Lord’s spokesman. “See,” says the seraph, “now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged.”

Then follows the question which is also an invitation and a call: “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” To which Isaiah responds at once: “Here I am, send me!”

The readiness of Isaiah recalls the faith of Abraham, Gen 12:1-4, and is in contrast to the hesitation of Moses, Ex 4:10-12, and especially of Jeremiah. We think too of the invitation which was given to Mary to be the Mother of the Messiah and the Son of God. Her response was as ready as that of Isaiah: “See the slave girl of the Lord; let it happen to me as you have said.” A ‘Yes’ that was never revoked, even in the most trying times.

Each one of us, too, has been called by God through our baptism and perhaps by some later experiences, although probably not as dramatic as that of Isaiah. The important thing is my response. As the advertisement used to ask: “Have you said ‘Yes’ yet?” Let me say it today with all my heart: “Lord, here I am; send me.”

Matthew 10:24-33

We continue Jesus’ apostolic discourse to his apostles and all those who do the work of evangelisation.

a, He reminds them very clearly that they can expect no better treatment than he himself received. “The disciple is not superior to his teacher.” All in all, Christians are to show no surprise at violence and abuse against them. But, at times, it can be hard to understand. However, if they treated the Master and Lord in this way, his followers can expect no better treatment. If the Master is called the Prince of Devils, how much more those of his family! Remember what Jesus had said earlier: “Blessed, fortunate are those who suffer persecution for the sake of the Gospel.”

b, Much of Jesus’ teaching to his disciples was done quietly and away from the crowds. He frequently told both people he cured and demons not to speak about him. Even his disciples were not to reveal his identity as Messiah. People at that stage were not ready and could have misinterpreted the true meaning of his teaching.

Also his message could not be fully understood until he had completed his mission through his passion, death and resurrection. Only that would put his teaching into its proper context.

But, in the course of time, it will be all made public. Later on it will be the duty of his disciples to deliver the message in its entirety and without fear. The Christian community, although it does consist of initiates with a way of life that is not always understood by outsiders, has no secrets. The ‘mysteries’ that Paul and others speak of are truths, previously unknown, which have been revealed. They are not like those of the so-called ‘mystery religions’ of the time or of secretive societies in our own. The message of Christ is to be made known to all in its entirety, even in hostile environments.

c, Some of those who proclaim the Gospel are going to be threatened even with losing their lives, a fact that is testified to by a long list of martyrs (martyr = witness) over the centuries. Jesus is saying that physical death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. It is a reality we are all going to have to face sooner or later anyway. Far worse than physical death is the “loss of one’s soul”, that is, the death of one’s integrity. There are some values which transcend our physical survival. To betray such a value in order to live a bit longer is to lose one’s soul. Thomas More understood this, so did Oscar Romero and many, many others.

Jesus is telling us that, even though we may, as he himself did, lose our lives, he will be with us. To be unfaithful to our deepest beliefs and convictions is a fate worse than death.

Week 15 | Monday

Isa 1:10-17

Last Saturday we saw Isaiah’s call to be a prophet of God taken from the sixth chapter.

We now go to the beginning of the book and from now on will have selected readings from chapters 1-39 which are really part of Isaiah’s own ministry. The rest of the Book of Isaiah (Parts 2 and 3) is now attributed to other writers.

Isaiah pulls no punches in communicating his message. “You rulers of Sodom…” and “You people of Gomorroah” are not addressed to the peoples of those cities which were long ago destroyed. He is speaking to the rulers and people of Jerusalem and the southern kingdom of Judah of which it is a part.

Today’s reading is a severe attack on religious hypocrisy. It is part of an oracle presumably uttered in the Temple at the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry. Like Amos (cf. readings for Wednesday of Week 13-II), Isaiah castigates ritual divorced from morality. The sincerity of the worshipper, not the number of his religious activities, is most important.

On the face of it, the people seem deeply religious: “endless sacrifices…holocausts of rams…specially fattened cattle…the blood of lambs, calves, goats…”. God finds no pleasure in a mere multiplicity of offerings. He does not even expect them: “When you come in to visit me, who asks these things of you?” Their offerings are not really directed to God but are a form of self-adulation. “How good we are! How pious and dedicated we are!”

The air filled with the smell of incense has become loathsome to Yahweh. He has no time for all their “new moons”, which were celebrated at the beginning of every month. Special sacrifices and feasts were part of the observance.

All their efforts at religious celebration and observance are in vain. When they spread out their hands in prayer, Yahweh hides his eyes. “When you stretch out your hands I turn my eyes away… You may multiply your prayers, I shall not listen.” Why? Because their hands are covered with blood - on the one hand, with the blood of sacrificial victims, coupled with that of the poor and weak who have been exploited and abused.

At first sight, it all seems to contradict everything we have heard about our merciful, forgiving and compassionate God. We remember, too, how Jesus taught us to pray incessantly. But here the prayers are so hypocritical. They consist of purely external ritual devoid of any real commitment to Yahweh’s will.

Their prayers can never be heard until they emanate from deep within the heart. Their prayers will be heard when people’s lives are seen to change radically. When they cease to do evil things and concentrate on what is good.

They need to wash themselves clean and put away their misdeeds, which no amount of sacrifices and holocausts will cover up. They must have only one aim: “Redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow.” When they search for justice and reach out to the oppressed, when they treat the widow and the orphan with justice, love and compassion, then and only then will their sacrifices be truly acceptable to the Lord.

In a society which knew nothing of social welfare, where the needy depended on support from the family, the widow and the orphan were particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect. The widow might very well be relatively young, having lost her husband through disease, accident or war. She had no future as no man would want to marry her. If she was childless she was of no interest to her father’s family or even her own. The orphan, too, was left exposed to destitution or having recourse to prostitution, male or female.

Applying this reading to our own situation is not difficult. We can see people devoting a great deal of energy to religious activities, devotions, pilgrimages, novenas… We can see them obsessed with keeping commandments and regulations and external observances but in their daily lives there is often widespread lack of charity, compassion and a willingness to forgive, to tolerate, to understand. There is often a wide dichotomy between what they proclaim in church and what they do in their daily lives.

“Don’t speak of love; show me!” exclaimed Eliza Doolittle to Professor Higgins in My Fair Lady. That could well sum up what God is saying to his people in today’s reading.

Matthew 10:34

We come to the final part of Jesus’ apostolic discourse in chapter 10.

At a first reading, today’s passage could be puzzling, not to say highly disturbing, to some. Jesus seems to contradict everything that he has said and done so far. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring but the sword.” But do we not call Jesus the Prince of Peace? Does Jesus not say during the Last Supper discourse in John’s gospel that he has come to give his peace to his disciples, a peace that no one will ever be able to take away from them? (John 14:27)

And Jesus goes on to apply to himself a passage from the prophet Micah (7:6): “For I have come to set ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be those of his own household’.” It sounds a terrible thing for Jesus our Saviour to be saying. But it expresses not what he wants to happen but what he sees as an inevitable outcome of his message of love. It says more about us than about him.

Unfortunately, what Jesus says has only been confirmed again and again. We have mentioned before the paradox that the message of Jesus about truth, love, justice and freedom for people everywhere is seen by some as highly subversive and dangerous. And people who subscribe to this vision of Jesus and try to implement it in their lives are likely to run into headlong opposition with those who have a totally different vision of life and who see Jesus’ vision as a real threat to their interests. In a world of conflicting ideologies, philosophies, cultures, traditions, ethnic and religious identities, to declare that one is opting for the Way of Jesus is often to invite opposition, persecution and even death.

What Jesus says here is a fact - and was already a known experience when this gospel was written. Christianity divided families and, in some places, it still does. But people who see and understand and accept the vision of life that Jesus offers know they have no choice but to follow it, even if close family members object. To go with Christ is to enter a new family, with new bonds. A family which, for its part, does not at all reject those who reject it. The Christian may be hounded and hated and expelled by family members but that is not the way he/she is going to respond to them. On the contrary, the dearest wish of the new Christian is that his family members will be able to see what he sees and, until they do, he will pray for them, bless them and love them.

Jesus then goes on to lay down the conditions necessary to be a genuine disciple. “Anyone who prefers father or mother to me is not worthy of me.” In many cultures - in Asia for instance - this is a hard saying and seems to fly in the face of the filial piety and respect for the authority of elders which is at the heart of such societies.

It is not, in fact, in conflict. Love and respect for family members is a very high value for the Christian but there are even higher values which may take precedence. Filial piety and parental authority can be very inward-looking, too centred on just this group of people. Racial, national and religious identity can also be very narrow and intolerant in its understanding.

Christianity is outward-looking and realises that there are people out there whose needs are even prior to those of my family. To the Christian his blood family are only some among many brothers and sisters who have to be loved, served and cared for. One is also never bound to follow family requirements which would be against truth, love, justice, honesty… As a Christian, I cannot obey a parent or other family member who practices dishonesty in business, who cheats, who sexually abuses, who practices racism or narrow-minded nationalism and the like and urges me to do the same.

Jesus, as the Word of God, stands for a level of truth and integrity and love which is the ultimate measure of all that I do and say. I cannot conform to the wishes of anyone, however close, who falls short of that measure. But my Christian love and concern for that person will not be diminished, in spite of how I may be treated.

To live like this can at time involve pain, separation, intense suffering and even death. This, I think, is what Jesus means when he says that I am not worthy of him unless I am willing to take my cross and walk with him. There is a price to be paid for being true and loving and just. This also is what he means by ‘finding’ live and ‘losing’ my life. To ‘find’ life is to take the easy way of accommodation and compromise, not to mention material gain and pleasure; to ‘lose’ is to let go and let Jesus take charge.

Of course, as Jesus points out, in the long run it is the ‘losers’ who find and the ‘finders’ who lose.

The discourse ends with some advice about finding Jesus in other people, especially his own followers. Anyone who welcomes a follower of Jesus, whether that person is a ‘prophet’ (a missionary) or a ‘holy man’ (an ordinary Christian) welcomes Jesus himself and welcomes the Father also. Even to give a cup of cold water to a Christian because he is a Christian will not go unrewarded.

The discourse is then clearly brought to an end by Matthew saying, “When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples he moved on from there to teach and preach in their towns.”

Week 15 | Tuesday

Isa 7:1-9

The reading seems to describe mainly a historical situation but there is a lesson which is brought out at the end.

The incident refers to what is known as the Syro-Ephraimite War which probably took place in the years 735-34 BC. Razon was king of Aram (Syria) and Pekah (752-732 BC) was king of Ephraim, another name for Israel or the Northern Kingdom. Syria and Israel were trying to persuade King Ahaz of Judah, the Southern Kingdom, to join them in an alliance against the powerful king of Assyria who had eyes on land lying to the west of his empire. Israel was afraid that Ahaz might go into a counter-alliance with Assyria which was not an unlikely possibility.

When the news reached “the house of David”, that is, King Ahaz, in Jerusalem that Syria and Israel-Ephraim were on his doorstep, he “and the hearts of the people shuddered as the trees of the forest shudder in front of the wind”. Their fear was justified because Ahaz had earlier been soundly defeated by the Syrian-Israel alliance.

It is at this point that Isaiah is told by God to meet Ahaz at an aqueduct where the king was probably inspecting the city’s water supply (rather important if a siege was in the offing). Its exact location is not now known. The Washerman’s (or Fuller’s) Field refers to a place where the citizens did their laundry. Clothes were cleaned by trampling on them in cold water and using a kind of soap (soda) or bleach called ‘fuller’.

With him Isaiah brings one of his sons, Shear-jashub. Each of Isaiah’s sons was given a symbolic and prophetic name and this one means ‘A remnant will return’. It indicates a prophecy that one day a small number of Jews would return to Israel and escape the punishment which most of the population has deserved.

Isaiah has words of comfort for Ahaz. The two countries threatening him, powerful though they seem to be, are merely “smouldering stumps of firebrands”. Their fire has gone out; only the smoke of dying embers remains. And, in fact, Damascus, the capital of Syria (Aram) was overcome by Tiglath-Pileser III in 732 BC and Israel, the Northern Kingdom, was badly defeated in the same year. Isaiah was issuing no empty threats.

Although the Syrian-Israel alliance intends to put the “son of Tabeel” (probably a courtier from Syria) on Ahaz’s throne, it will not happen, says Isaiah. Tabeel is an Aramaic name sometimes linked with the “land of Tob”, on the east side of the Jordan.

Isaiah then proceeds to make a prophecy indicating that Syrian-Ephraim alliance will not succeed. “This shall not stand, it shall not be!”

At this time, the capital or ‘head’ of Syria was Damascus and Razon head of Damascus; Samaria was the capital or ‘head’ of Ephraim (Israel) and the son of Remaliah the head of Samaria (Ephraim/Israel). The irony of the words is that mere men head these territories while the real king of Judah-Jerusalem is not Ahaz but Yahweh the Lord God.

“Six or five years more” and Ephraim (Israel) will be no more, says God through his prophet. And indeed in the year 722 BC the city of Samaria fell. Later still, about 670 BC, the Assyrian king settled foreign colonies in Israel. The intermarriage of these settlers with the Jewish remnant resulted in the “Samaritans”. The northern kingdom was no longer a separate and distinct nation.

All of this is a warning to Ahaz that the same fate awaits Judah unless he stands firm. “If you do not stand by me, you will not stand at all.” The message is clear: Ahaz is to put his firm trust and confidence in the protection of Yahweh, who alone has the power to save him and his people. Unfortunately, the message will not be heeded.

In the prophets, faith is not so much a theoretical belief in the existence and uniqueness of God as an attitude of confidence based on God’s choice of Israel: he has chosen Israel, he is Israel’s God, he alone has the power to save his people. This unconditional trust, a guarantee of salvation, excludes all reliance not only on human agency but still more on false gods.

We, too, cannot expect God to stand by us if we do not stand by him. This is not to be interpreted as saying that God is touchy and vindictive and that, if he feels insulted or ignored, he will abandon us or bring some terrible punishment on us. It means that only when we are fully on his side, when his way is fully assimilated into our lives will we find the life he promises. If we insist on going our own way, he will not stop us but he will not be able to help us either. We will have shut ourselves off from his loving help.

Matthew 11:20-24

After the apostolic discourse of chap 10, Matthew goes back to narrative. In two passages preceding today’s Jesus reassures the disciples of John the Baptist that he is indeed the “one who is to come”, that is, the Messiah and Saviour-King.

This is followed by a passage where Jesus complains of those who close their minds to God’s word. John the Baptist led the life of an ascetic in the wilderness and they did not listen to him. Jesus socialised freely with all kinds of people and they accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard.

So today Jesus warns three towns where he spent much of his time: Chorazin, Bethsaida and especially Capernaum. If Jesus had done in the pagan towns of Tyre and Sidon what he had down in these predominantly Israelite towns, they would have converted long ago. Even Sodom, the biblical image of the very worst in immorality, would have done better.

It is important for us to realise that, in today’s Gospel, Jesus is primarily speaking to us today. If many non-Christians had been given the opportunities that we have received through our membership of the Christian community, they could very well be living much more generously than we do. To what extent are we listening to God’s word? How much of it do we try to understand? And how much of it is reflected in our lifestyle? Are we clearly and obviously followers of Christ and his Way?

Week 15 | Wednesday

Isa 10:5-7, 13-16

A powerful passage today, full of eloquently poetic images but with one very simple message: the Lord God is master of all that happens. On the face of it, the conquests of Assyria (and later of Babylon) seemed to be the work of a powerful empire. Yet, in truth, Assyria, for all its power, is in the prophet’s eyes merely the unwitting instrument of God.

So the prophet cries in God’s name, “Woe to Assyria!”, for what it does is wicked and evil. Isaiah is probably referring to Sennacherib at the time of his invasion in 701 BC. At the same time, it is “the rod of God’s anger”. It is an instrument unknowingly doing the work of the God in which it does not believe. Later on, Babylon will play the same role.

Assyria is being sent “against a godless nation”, namely, God’s own people in Judah who have turned their backs on their Lord to indulge in idolatry and immorality. It is with the Lord’s permission that the Assyrians under Sennacherib pillage and plunder and “stamp the people down like the mud in the streets”.

Maybe Sennacherib believed this was all his own strategy - but no. “He did not intend this, his heart did not plan it so.” The Assyrian’s aim was to destroy, “to go on cutting nations to pieces without limit” but, in reality, he was bringing the punishment on Judah which its sinfulness had merited.

Not aware of the supporting role he was playing in a bigger drama, he makes his boasts:

“Are not my commanders all kings?” As he made one conquest after another, he put his commanders as rulers of vanquished territories. “Is not Calno like Carchemish, Hamath like Arpad, Samaria like Damascus” as he lists off the cities that have now become part of Assyrian territory.

And what he has done to other idolatrous territories, will he not do the same to Jerusalem and its idolatrous images? And so he continues with one boast after another. He had “pushed back the frontiers of peoples and plundered their treasures” and “brought their inhabitants down to the dust”.

In language filled with contempt for his opponents he boasts:

As people pick up deserted eggs,

I have picked up the whole earth,

with not a wing fluttering,

not a beak opening, not a chirp.

Altogether in his statement Sennacherib refers to himself nine times. He really believed all that happened was his own doing: “By the strength of my own arm I have done this, and by my wisdom, for I am shrewd…” However, as a godless people, Assyria’s lot would be no better than those it was trying to crush. (It is reminiscence of the arrogance of Hitler at the height of the Nazi regime.)

Sennacherib’s power is all an illusion. “Does the axe claim more credit than the man who wields it?… It would be like the cudgel controlling the man who raises it…” So is Sennacherib in God’s hands.

And so his ultimate impotence is revealed when a “wasting sickness”, probably some kind of rapidly spreading plague, brought death to 185,000 of his troops in 701 BC as they prepared to lay siege to Jerusalem, forcing him to withdraw.

Again we have to read this passage with care. In some ways, there are natural explanations for all that happened both to the Assyrians and God’s people. We need to avoid the image of a vindictive God who hits back at his disobedient people by bringing terrible calamities on them.

The principal message is rather that ultimately everything comes from God and we are - as Paul would say - like putty in his hands.

The message for God’s people is that, by turning their back on him, they will gain nothing and lose everything. This applied equally to the Assyrian conquerors and the defeated people of Judah. Even the most powerful people in our society ultimately have feet of clay and can be brought down by the simplest of things (like a tiny virus).

Yet, how many of us, sometimes in small and silly ways, think that we can wield power and seek to have power over others.

True life and true happiness consists in our being at all times malleable instruments in God’s hands bringing life and happiness to others.

Matthew 11:25-27

Yesterday we saw Jesus severely chiding the people of three cities where he had shown many signs of his divine origin for their slowness to believe in and accept him. Today he speaks with warmth and praise of those who have become his followers.

He remarks, in a prayer he makes to his Father, that it is not the learned and clever, the Scribes and Pharisees, the religious experts, but “the merest children”, his disciples, who have been graced with understanding the secrets of the Kingdom. They are children not only in their lack of learning and sophistication but also in their openness to hear and learn, a virtue lacking in those who regarded themselves as intellectuals.

This was in fact a reflection on the actual development of the early Church. It was a grassroots movement which spread most among the lower levels of society and among slaves. It would not be until later that Christianity spread to the higher echelons and become the faith also of the ruling elite and the intellectual classes. As Jesus says today, “Yes, Father, for that is what is pleased you to do.”

In growing and spreading in this way, Christianity showed, first, that it was really the work of God. It worked against powerful forces which tried very hard to obliterate it but in the end the power of truth and love were too strong for even the strongest opponents.

Second, it revealed the truly catholic nature of the Christian faith. It was never an exclusive domain of either the political or educated elite. It has appealed and continues to appeal to people at every level of society from intellectual giants like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Henry Newman to the totally illiterate. Both can sit side by side and together hear the Gospel and celebrate the Eucharist.

Finally, Jesus suggests that knowing him and, through him, knowing the Father is a gift that he gives. We can all, of course, open ourselves to that gift. Why some of us do and others do not is something we cannot understand in this life. It is a gift which is offered, never imposed and again no one can know who are those who have been offered it and turned it down.

Let us today thank God that we have been among those who have listened and accepted and been graced. But we know we have a lot more listening and accepting yet to do. Jesus stands at our door and knocks today and every day. It is up to me to what extent I open that door and let him come in.

Week 15 | Thursday

Isa 26:7-9, 12, 16-19

We have today a beautiful prayer for judgement to come soon.

It is the prayer of one who wants to follow closely the Lord’s way:

The path of the upright man is straight,
you smooth the way of the upright.
His one longing is to be close to his Lord.
“Your name, your memory are all my soul desires.”

This contrasts strongly with the cruel and materialistic world of yesterday’s reading.

The next phrase is also a lovely one and one which we could make our own prayer:

At night my soul longs for you
and my spirit in me seeks for you.

We speak today of “seeking God in all things”, in every person, in every experience, in every situation. This is where our lives get their true meaning.

And when your judgements appear on the earth,
the inhabitants of the world
learn the meaning of integrity.

For it is the judgements of God which throw light on what is really good and true and just.

The upright person too totally accepts those judgements and decisions of God:

Lord, you are giving us peace,
since you treat us
as our deeds deserve.

The good person has nothing to fear: good deeds will bring their own reward; evil deeds will bring their consequences too. In either case, the good experience peace because, whatever happens, they are in touch with God’s love. The pains that follow from sinful acts are accepted:

Distressed, we search for you, Lord;
the misery of oppression was your punishment for us.

Everything, absolutely everything - be it good or bad, pleasant or painful, as Paul reminds us, works together for the ultimate good of those who love God. Those without that love are left pained and puzzled. Those with love find peace in every experience.

At the same time the prophet speaks with regret of how the people have not lived up to their commitments. Speaking on their behalf he says: “O Lord, oppressed by your punishment, we cried out in anguish under your chastising.” Here he may be referring to the Assyrian oppression.

Israel was intended to be “a light for the Gentiles” (see Isaiah 42:6 and 9:2, which are cited in the Gospel) but “we have not given the spirit of salvation to the earth, no more inhabitants of the world are born”.

Jesus will teach us in the Gospel that his followers, too, are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We are to let people see our goodness so that they may be drawn to love and glorify God. But, by their behaviour, Isaiah says that God’s people failed in this regard.

And we Christians, too, would have to admit to frequent failure. In these days, we are as likely to turn people away from Christ as towards him. It is time for us, as it was for the people that Isaiah addressed, to bring the dead, the spiritually dead, back to life. And then “the land of ghosts will give birth”.

Let us pray that our land be transformed from one of ghosts to one that has and gives life.

Matthew 11:28-30

The Gospel in many of its passages is very demanding and requires an unconditional commitment to the following of Christ. We have seen that clearly in the contrast Jesus made between the demands of the Law and what he expected from his followers. But, again and again, that is balanced by the other side of God - his compassion and his understanding of our weakness and frailty.

Today he invites “all you who labour and are overburdened and I will give you rest”. He seems to be referring to the burden of the Law and the many other legalistic observances which had accumulated over the generations. In fact there was a common rabbinic metaphor which spoke of the ‘yoke of the Law’. We will see some of this in the two remaining readings of this week. Jesus did not have much time for this kind of religion. He invites us to come to him instead and experience comfort and consolation.

Jesus invites us to take on his yoke instead. A yoke can be heavy but it makes it easier for the ox to pull the cart or the plough. Jesus’ yoke is the yoke of love. On the one hand, it restricts us from acting in certain ways but at the same time it points us in the right direction. In the long run, it has a liberating effect. It is not unlike the idea of the “narrow door” which Jesus invites us to go through rather than follow the wide road to nowhere.

Jesus asks us to learn from him in his gentleness and humility. This was in stark contrast to the severity and arrogance of other religious leaders. Not only are we to experience the gentleness of Jesus, we are also to practise it in our own dealings with others.

I think it is commentator William Barclay who offers another lovely idea. It was quite common to have double yokes when two animals pulled a vehicle together. Barclay suggests that Jesus is offering to share his yoke with us. He and I will pull together and he will share the burden with me. In either case, he assures us that his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

Jesus expects us to give all of ourselves to him but, when we do so, we discover that what he asks is absolutely right for us. To follow Jesus is not to carry a great weight but to experience a great sense of liberation.

If we have not found that experience yet then we are not yet carrying the yoke of Jesus.

Week 15 | Friday

Isa 38:1-8, 21-22

[Note that the verse numberings represent a continuous text; vv.21-22 follow v.6 and are followed immediately by vv.7-8 in the original.]

Today we have the story of a good man who faithfully followed God’s will. It is our last reading from this part of the Book of Isaiah. The other parts of the book will be read at other times in the readings cycle.

The story told today seems to have taken place some time before the Assyrian invasion by Sennacherib in 701 BC. Isaiah plays a central role in the king’s dialogue with God.

It begins by the prophet telling the king, who is terminally ill, that it is time for him to put his affairs in order for his approaching death. The prophet Elisha similarly predicted the death of the Syrian king, Ben-Hadad (2 Kgs 8:9-10).

The king turned his face to the wall, not of his bedroom but more probably of the Temple, God’s dwelling house, and prayed that God would remember the good things he had done in the service of Yahweh during his life. Among a line of kings who were steeped in idolatry and immorality, Hezekiah stood out for his goodness.

It is possible, too, that he had has yet no son or successor to take over from him and so he wept bitterly. To think that he was going to die without an heir was perhaps the greatest pain of what seemed a terminal illness.

But his prayer clearly pleased the Lord for Isaiah was sent with the good news that Hezekiah would be cured and in three days’ time would be able to go up to the Temple. More than that, he was promised that another 15 years would be added to his life and that Jerusalem would be protected from the Assyrian king. (We saw yesterday how Sennacherib’s army, about to lay siege to Jerusalem, was decimated by a plague which killed more than 180,000 soldiers and thus forced Sennacherib to withdraw.)

Finally, Isaiah ordered that a poultice of figs be applied by the court physicians so that the king could recover from an illness that was originally (v.1) believed to be terminal. Figs were often used for medicinal purposes.

Hezekiah, for his part, asked for some sign to confirm that he would be healed and that he would be able to go to the Temple and make a sacrifice of thanksgiving. It is not clear what sign he was requesting but it might simply have been the healing of what is described as a ‘boil’.

His request was granted and the sign promised was that the setting sun would go back by ten steps, as indicated by its shadow on the “steps of Ahaz”. The meaning is not clear and the phrase may refer to a sundial. In any case the promised sign took place. It may have been a miracle or it may simply have been caused by the refraction of light.

Here we see how a good man approaches the news of his death. His main concern is that God should be aware of the kind of life he had led. At first he does not ask to be healed, rather that he experience final salvation with God. God then gives him what he had not actually asked for, namely, that he be healed and many more years of life be given to him. This is his reward for his fidelity to Yahweh during his reign.

When we are confronted with serious sickness, our own or that of people close to us, we too need that kind of attitude that accepts fully what God wills for us at this time. Perhaps it is the end of our time and earth and we have to bid farewell to it and go forth to meet our God face to face. Or it may be that our time has not yet come and we will be called to live on, either totally or partially healed, for some time to come. In that case, our healing is a call for us to greater service of God and our neighbour. It is also an opportunity to re-orientate our lives where that is necessary. Strange to say, a spell in hospital is not infrequently a grace-filled time to reflect on the meaning and direction of one’s life. Better even than a retreat!

Matthew 12:1-8

Today’s story follows immediately on yesterday’s words of Jesus inviting those carrying heavy burdens to come to him for comfort and relief. Those burdens were understood to be the yoke of the Law which could weight so heavily on the ordinary person. Today we see what kind of burdens it entailed.

Jesus and his disciples are walking through a cornfield. The disciples were feeling a little hungry so they began plucking ears of corn to eat. Nothing wrong with that. Gleaning, especially where the poor were concerned, was not regarded as stealing. “When you go through your neighbour’s grainfield, you may pick some of the ears with your hand, but do not put a sickle to your neighbour’s grain” (Deuteronomy 23:26).

Yet the Pharisees criticised the disciples’ behaviour before Jesus. They were not upset by the plucking of the corn but because it was done a sabbath day. Most manual work was forbidden on the sabbath, including for instance, reaping. So we read in Exodus: “For six days you may work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; on that day you must rest even during the seasons of ploughing and harvesting” (Exodus 34:21). The question that would come immediately to the legalistic mind would be what exactly constituted harvesting. In the minds of the Pharisees, who would put the strictest interpretation in order to be on the safe side, what the disciples were doing contravened the Sabbath requirements.

Jesus would have none of this nonsense. He gave two examples which the Pharisees would find difficult to criticise:

First, David’s soldiers, because they were hungry, went into the house of God and ate the loaves of proposition, that is, bread which was laid out as an offering to God. According to the law, only the priests were allowed to eat this bread.

Second, he pointed to the priests on temple duty who not only worked on the sabbath but did more work than usual on that day (like priests today!). Yet no one found fault with them.

Jesus has two further and more powerful arguments:

- He calls his accusers’ attention to a saying from the prophet Hosea (Hos 6:6): “It is mercy I desire, not sacrifice.” What this means is that the measure of our behaviour in God’s eyes is not our observance of law but the degree of love and compassion we have for our brothers and sisters. Laws are for people; people are not for laws. That is why a truly loving act always transcends any law. If the Pharisees had fully understood the meaning of Hosea’s words, they would not have “condemned these innocent men”.

- Finally, Jesus simply says, “The Son of Man is indeed the Lord of the sabbath.” Jesus as Lord is not bound by even the God-given laws of Israel. If, in the eyes of Jesus, his disciples are innocent, then they are innocent.

Every time we read texts like this we have to look at how we as Christians behave both individually and corporately. Legalism and small-mindedness can very easily infect our Catholic life. We can start measuring people - including ourselves but especially others - by the observance or non-observance of things which really have little to do with the substance of our Christian faith. Of course, we can also go to the other extreme of having no rules at all.

There is a very demanding law to which we are all called to subscribe and that is the law of love. It allows of no exceptions. But its practice can only benefit both the giver and the receiver.

Week 15 | Saturday

Mic 2:1-5

Today we have the first of three readings from the prophet Micah.

Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah but we know nothing of his life except that he came from an obscure village in the foothills of Judah. Like the other prophets he attacked those who exploited the poor, merchants who cheated, corrupt judges, priests and prophets. The cities of Jerusalem and Samaria were particular targets.

The verses we read today are directed mainly against rich landowners who are oppressing the poor. According to the prophet, they lie in bed wondering what their next money-making move will be. Micah, however, describes their plans as plotting evil and planning mischief, “working out evil as they recline on their opulent couches”. As soon as dawn breaks, they get up to put their plots into action. The rich, exploiting classes continue to get rich at the expense of the poor because they control the power structures of their society. “They covet land and simply take it over as their own whatever catches their fancy.”

Covetousness alone was a violation of the 10th Commandment. Land monopoly, also denounced by Isaiah, was a chronic vice in Judah. To protect the poor against it, a man’s inheritance, his ancestral property, was supposed to be inviolate. According to the Law, land was the permanent possession of a family. But the wealthy in their greed were enslaving poor landowners for their debts and thus taking over the land in payment.

(We saw something of this when Queen Jezebel engineered the death of Naboth as a way by which the king, her husband, could have the vineyard he coveted, cf. reading for Monday of 11th Week.)

And then they would take over the house as well, presumably as collateral for a debt that had not been repaid. In this way the already rich landowners could increase their ownings with the least outlay (and the greatest injustice). It all sounds so contemporary!

But the prophet warns that they are not going to get away with their exploitation of the poor and weak for long. “I am planning against this race an evil from which you shall not withdraw your necks.” Little do they know that the invader is about to strike and carry off all, both rich and poor, into bitter exile.

On that day the rich will sing remorsefully of how all are being stripped of everything, of how all the possessions they had robbed from the poor are now being measured out and shared and given to the idolatrous invading forces.

“You shall have no one to mark out boundaries by lot in the Lord’s assembly.” The oppressing classes, the monopolists will be excluded from the division of the land in the restored kingdom. They will be cut off from all the promises of the covenant people. ‘Marking by lot’ is an allusion to the initial distribution of the land of Palestine among the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land. The appropriate punishment of those greedy for land will be loss of their land to their enemies, a loss that will be irrevocable.

But in the “community of the Lord”, in the Kingdom that is to come, that Kingdom of justice and peace, there will be a true sharing out in which all will get their due share. However, there will be no share for those who greedily tried to monopolise all material wealth into their own hands and brought suffering on the poor and needy.

Our societies today are no strangers to the exploitation and robbery of the poor by the already rich. It can be one individual against another, one society against another, one nation against another or even one continent against another. Sometimes, such exploitation may even be according to the law and be defended in court but the injustice remains. In spite of unprecedented prosperity, we live in a world of scandalous inequality. Let us not be part of it.

Matthew 12:14-21

Jesus is becoming a figure of controversy. We saw yesterday how he was accused by Pharisees of condoning the breaking of the sabbath on the part of his disciples. Far from apologising, Jesus defended his followers and implied that he himself was greater than the Law. Immediately afterwards he went to a synagogue and, in spite of a challenge about healing on the sabbath, went ahead and cured a physically handicapped man.

At the end of this story, Matthew says, “The Pharisees went out and began to plot against him, discussing how to destroy him.” He was seen as a severe threat to their authority. And that is where our reading begins today.

Jesus was fully aware of their plotting and so he disappeared from sight for a while. We should be clear that Jesus did not go out of his way to confront and attack people. Still less was his behaviour deliberately designed to create trouble for himself. There are people like that; they go out of their way to make trouble for others and for themselves. Jesus never behaved in such a way. He did not want to attack or be attacked by certain people. He did not deliberately engineer his own sufferings and death; quite the contrary. So now, as things get hot for him, he withdraws for a while.

At this point, Matthew, who, we remember is writing for a Jewish readership, shows how Jesus’ behaviour corresponds to a prophecy in the Old Testament. This is something he does a number of times.

The passage is from the prophet Isaiah (42:1-4) and it shows Jesus as full of the Spirit of God campaigning for justice for peoples everywhere. He is the servant whom God has chosen, “my beloved in whom I delight”. He is no demagogue shouting from a soapbox. “He will not contend or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.” He moves around quietly and, at the same time, is tolerant and understanding of the weak. His behaviour is described beautifully as, “The bruised reed he will not crush; the smouldering wick he will not quench.”

We, too, are called to live and proclaim the Gospel without compromise but to do so without any taint of arrogance or bullying and, at the same time, with patience and understanding for those who are not yet ready to answer Jesus’ call.

Week 16 | Monday

Mic 6:1-4, 6-8

We have a rather unusual reading today but one that is full of love and tenderness. The scene is that of a courtroom and of people on trial. The Lord lodges a legal complaint against Judah. Those on trial are God’s people and he is their judge. The witnesses are the surrounding mountains and hills.

There are three distinct parts:

1, the evidence against God’s people. The Lord summons the people to listen to his accusation and to prepare their defence against the charges that follow. The Lord speaks poignantly in reminding the people of his gracious acts in their behalf.

2, their response in which they ask what compensation they need to pay for their sins

3, God, through the mouth of his prophet, tells them what he expects.

1, The people are called on to stand up and face their judge and the mountains and hills are told to listen as witnesses to the judge’s accusations against his people in Judah. In both the Hebrew and Christian Testaments, mountains are holy places where God likes to commune with his people e.g. Sinai, Nebo, Zion, Carmel as well as the mountains of the Sermon on the Mount and the transfiguration of Jesus on Tabor. They are the impassive, unchanging witnesses through time of the great covenants God made with his people.

The evidence against the people is all the wrongs they have done and their total ingratitude for all that God has done for them. In the verses immediately following today’s reading, some of these wrongs are listed. They include:

- Rich men full of violence

- People speaking falsehoods

- False weights and measures designed to cheat buyers

- Imitating the semi-paganism of the Northern Kingdom with its corrupt worship and social injustice.

“O my people, what have I done to you?” cries Yahweh, that they should respond to his love in this way. And he reminds them of how he rescued them from the slavery of Egypt under the leadership of Moses, Aaron and Miriam and brought them to the Promised Land.

The words here form the basis for the lamentations (the Improperia) used in the Good Friday liturgy to call us to repentance for our sinful ingratitude to God’s love in our lives. “My people, what have I done to you, how have I been a burden to you?” asks the Lord. The plea is softened by the address “My people”, expressing sorrow rather than anger.

2, The people respond by asking what they should do to make recompense. What gifts should they bring into God’s presence to appease him? They suggest both lawful and forbidden sacrifices. Does Yahweh God want holocausts of young calves? Does he want offerings of thousands of rams and torrents of oil? Does he want them to give up their first-born sons as penitential compensation for their sins and offences? (Yahweh would never demand human sacrifice as some of the other religions did. It shows how religiously confused the people are.)

3, God, through his prophet, rejects all of these. He does not want to be appeased; he does not need to be appeased. He is above all that. What he does want, what gives him the greatest happiness is to see a deep inner conversion on the part of his people, a radical changing of their ways. This will make him happy because therein lies their own happiness too. He wants a religion of merely external ritual to be replaced with a religion of the spirit, as expressed in the prophets - justice justice (Amos), love (Hosea), humility before God (Isaiah).

So the reading ends with one of the most lovely sentences in the whole of the Bible, one which perhaps we have heard quoted but never knew where it came from.

This is what the Lord asks of you:

only this, to act justly,
to love tenderly,
and to walk humbly with your God.

Everything is contained there. It covers both the teaching of the Old and the New Testaments on how we should behave. If we can live like this, our lives will be perfect:

- to treat others with justice, in deep respect to give to each one what is their right and their due,

- to be filled with love: both agape (’agaph), and philia (filia), philia), and

- to be deeply united in prayer with our God.

Matthew 12:38-42

Today’s passage follows two others, which we have not read. In the first Jesus is accused of doing what he does by the power of Satan. An accusation which he easily shows is self-contradictory and makes no sense. In the second he says that a tree that is rotten inside cannot produce good fruit. Goodness comes from a person’s interior. The words are directed at his accusers whom he more than once accuses of being hypocrites: pious and law-abiding on the outside and full of malice inside.

It is these same people who approach him today. It is difficult to know their mood as they ask Jesus for a sign. Is it a genuine request for Jesus to indicate the source of his authority and power or is it a hostile demand for Jesus to present his credentials?

In response, Jesus first says that “it is an evil and unfaithful (literally, ‘adulterous’) generation that asks for a sign”. Yes, evil and unfaithful, because for anyone with an open mind, Jesus has been giving nothing but signs ever since he began his public life. The ordinary people have been full of praise and amazement at what Jesus is doing and say that “God has visited his people”. But these leaders, blinded by their own prejudice, are even saying that the teaching, exorcisms and healings of Jesus are the work of Satan.

In addition to all this they are going to get an unmistakable sign of who Jesus really is. They will be given the “sign of Jonah”. Just as Jonah spent three days buried in the belly of the sea monster so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and nights. This is a clear reference to Jesus’ resurrection - the conclusive sign of his identity and power.

Mention of Jonah leads Jesus to say that the people of Niniveh who repented after hearing Jonah will fare better at the last judgment than the people that Jesus is speaking with. And Jesus is of far more significance than Jonah.

Similarly, the Queen of the South, that is, the Queen of Sheba, who came from a far distance to hear the wisdom of Solomon will fare better than the unbelieving listeners to Jesus, who is greater by far than Solomon.

We, too, have the privilege of listening to Jesus and we know the sign of his resurrection. Is it not possible that there are many people around us who, not knowing Jesus but following the guidance of their consciences, will find themselves going before us into the Kingdom? Complacency is probably one of our biggest temptations. “I am good enough; I observe the basic requirements of my religion.” Is that all that Jesus expects of me?

Week 16 | Tuesday

Mic 7:14-15, 18-20

Today’s third and final selection from Micah consists of a lovely prayer from a people aware of their great needs which only God can remedy. The prophet begs God to lead his people to richer pastures, for the people of Israel are his very inheritance.

Right now “they live in a forest with meadow land all around”. Literally the prophet says they are living “in the midst of a garden”. The idea is that the nation is living isolated in a land that is unproductive, in the sense that they are living in a situation of desolation and hardship after their return to Jerusalem from their exile in Babylon.

They now long for the days when they could pasture in Bashan and Gilead, for the days when they came up out of Egypt and were the witnesses to all God’s wonders on their behalf. And, as in the days after they left Egypt, they long for more wonderful signs of Yahweh’s love and power.

The prophet then appeals to God’s very nature to come to their aid. “What God can compare with you?” This prayer is a psalm of which similar examples occur in the prophetic writings. He is not the kind of god that others believe in, a god who instils terror and fear. This God takes faults away and pardons crime. This God is not a vindictive God who does not cherish anger for ever but delights in showing mercy and compassion.

Micah begs his God to have pity on his people in spite of all that they have done. “Tread down our faults, to the bottom of the sea throw all our sins.” He appeals to God to remember and to implement the covenants of old that were made with Abraham and Jacob, covenants of faithfulness and mercy.

Perhaps we, too, feel now or have felt at other times that our lives were being lived in a kind of desert. We ask God to lead us to richer pastures where we can experience joy and peace. We, too, know that we have a God beyond compare, made known to us through the life and death of Jesus. Through Jesus, he has given us a new life in a new covenant. We, too, beg our God to wipe out all our sins and help us to turn totally to him in love and fidelity.

Matthew 12:46-50

Just before we enter the third great discourse which are on the parables of the Kingdom, we have today’s short passage on who really belong to Jesus.

As Jesus was speaking to the crowds his mother and other family members arrived. “They were standing outside and were anxious to have a word with him.” Matthew does not say what that word was but we know from another context that they were embarrassed by what he was doing, probably because of the way he was earning the displeasure of the authorities. In later times, many who opted to follow Christ have been a source of embarrassment and displeasure to their families, especially in situations where being Christian or Catholic was a violation of state law or religious affiliation.

When Jesus is told they are looking for him he stretches out his hands to his followers and says that

they are his “mother and brothers”. And then he defines how one becomes one of his brothers and sisters: “Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

It is significant that Jesus’ own blood relatives are spoken of as being “outside”; Jesus’ disciples, those who really listen to him, are those who are “inside”. This is not to say that Jesus is rejecting his family; to do so would be to contradict his own teaching of loving all unconditionally. But he uses the situation to make a very important point: namely, that relationship to Jesus is based on one thing only, total commitment through Jesus to the Father.

To be a Christian, a disciple, is to enter into this new relationship with God and with others. All other bonds, including those of blood, take a second place or are to be understood in the light of this bonding to God first of all and above all.

It would be wrong to conclude that Jesus was rejecting his own mother here. Yet what he says applies to her as much as to anyone else. Mary is measured by her commitment to the Father and the Son, who is also her Son. That commitment was clearly made when she accepted to be the mother of Jesus, “Let it happen to me according to your word.” It was a commitment that was still being kept as she stood in grief at the foot of her Son’s cross. Mary was certainly on the “inside”.

Let us ask her today that we, too, may always be ‘insiders’.

Week 16 | Wednesday

Jer 1:1, 4-10

As we listen during these weeks to the teachings of the great prophets, we come today to one of the greatest - Jeremiah in the latter half of the 7th century BC. He was born about 650 BC of a priestly family in Anathoth, a village near Jerusalem. Today we read how in the year 628, at the age of 22, how he was called to be a prophet. His life in the service of the Lord will face many hardships.

Today we start with hearing about his call by God to be a prophet.

The first three verses of the first chapter put Jeremiah in his historical context but we only read the first verse. In the verses omitted, we are told that his call came in the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah and continued through the reign of his son, Jehoiakim and on until the downfall of Jerusalem under puppet King Zedekiah, a son of Josiah, when the people were brought off into exile to Babylon. In our readings from the books of the Kings, we have met all these people already.

The book opens by telling us that it contains the “words of Jeremiah”, that is, the whole story of his discourses and activities. (There are actually 10 people called Jeremiah in the Hebrew Testament, of whom two were actually contemporaries of our prophet.)

His father, Hilkiah (a common Biblical name, meaning ‘the Lord is my portion’) may have been related to a priestly house going back to the time of King Solomon. Like Ezekiel and Zechariah, Jeremiah himself was both a prophet and priest. We know of two other men in the Bible named Hilkiah, both of them Jeremiah’s contemporaries.

His birthplace, Anathoth, was a village not far from Jerusalem and was named after Anat(h), a Canaanite deity who was goddess of war. Its priestly connections go back to the time of Joshua, the successor of Moses, and Solomon. Abiathar the priest had been sent into exile there by Solomon. Its pagan origins would presumably have been almost forgotten by Jeremiah’s time.

Anata, a town 5 km northeast of Jerusalem, still preserves the ancient name although it is about 2 km away from the biblical site. Anathoth is described as being in the territory of Benjamin (patriarch and the youngest of Jacob’s 12 sons) and was one of four Levitical towns. (Priests came from the tribe of Levi.) After the Babylonian exile, Benjamites settled there again.

Jeremiah then tells how the word of God came to him. Yahweh says to him: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you came to birth I consecrated you.” From all eternity God knew of Jeremiah and in the very act of creating him had a call on his unconditional service. In the beginning of the letter to the Ephesians we read a similar description of our own calling: “God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph 1:4). Paul, writing to the Galatians, speaks of “God who set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace…” (Gal 1:15).

When God tells Jeremiah, “I knew you”, he means more than an awareness of his identity. To “know” in the Scripture implies a close and intimate relationship which goes beyond the purely mental or intellectual, still less just recognition. In other biblical contexts, the word can also mean “choose”.

When God says to the prophet, “I consecrated you”, he means more than making Jeremiah holy but rather equipping him for the work of prophet, to be a spokesman for God with his people. Jeremiah is being called to be a prophet to the nations, but his native Judah, the kingdom of which Jerusalem was the capital, is certainly included among these.

Jeremiah responds to this call with some alarm; like Isaiah, he feels totally inadequate for the task. Moses, too, had many misgivings about being chosen to lead God’s people. “If you please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past, nor recently, nor now that you have spoken to your servant. But I am slow of speech and tongue” (Exod 4:10). Jeremiah also says: “I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.” And Paul, when he complains of an affliction that he feels makes him less effective as an evangeliser, is reassured that it is precisely his weaknesses which make him a fitting channel for God’s message (2 Cor 12:7-10).

Jeremiah’s objection is rejected immediately by Yahweh. He has no cause to fear. “Do not say, I am only a child.” Youth and inexperience do not disqualify when God calls. He equips and sustains those he commissions. Timothy is also encouraged when he is told: “Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim 4:12).

“Have no fear” - perhaps one of the most repeated phrases in both the Old and New Testaments and often heard from the lips of Jesus. Jeremiah will be given what he needs to carry out his mission. He is simply to go to those to whom he will be sent and to say what he is told to say. He has no need to fear because God is with him to protect him.

“I am with you” - God’s promise of his continuing presence should calm the fears of the most reluctant of prophets. “To deliver you” - Yahweh does not promise that Jeremiah will not be persecuted or imprisoned (he will) but that no serious physical harm will come to him.

Then comes the act or rite of commissioning. What is described may have come to Jeremiah in a vision or the experience is simply being expressed in figurative language. The Lord touched Jeremiah’s mouth and gave him his mission. “I am putting words into your mouth.” It describes perfectly the role of the prophet - to be a spokesperson for God. As he had been promised earlier, Jeremiah will be told what he has to say. The prophet does not speak in his own name; he speaks as the messenger of God.

The prophetic mission is then described in both negative and positive terms. He is both to “tear up and knock down, to destroy and overthrow”. But he is also “to build and to plant”. The first two pairs of verbs are negative, stressing the fact that Jeremiah is to be primarily a prophet condemning what is wrong, while the last pair is positive, indicating that he is also to be a prophet of restoration - even if only secondarily. This is the traditional role of the prophet. He is called on to denounce all that is against truth, love and justice. He also exhorts people to convert, to reform and to turn their lives around.

Jeremiah is often seen as a prophet of doom (we call gloomy people “Jeremiahs”) but he also had positive messages to bring. We will see that Jeremiah’s hard-hitting words were not welcomed especially by the rich and those in power. He will be attacked and persecuted.

This too is the role of the Church within whose ranks there must always be prophets. Prophets who will not only speak to the world but to their own Church.

We might reflect on who are the prophets in our contemporary Church today? Do we have enough prophets? Does our Church encourage and see the need for the prophetic role? One fact is sure; they are not always welcomed by their fellow-Christians, not least by those in authority. There can also be false prophets and we must carefully discern which is which.

Every baptised person is, in a sense, priest, prophet and king as we share in the mission of Jesus Christ himself, who was, of course, a prophet in the sense we have been discussing. Each one of us has been called from all eternity to do what Jeremiah was asked to do: to tear up and knock down, to build and to plant.

As we sometimes say, the Church and its members have both to denounce and announce, or, in more colloquial terms, “to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable”. As with Jeremiah, this will not make us very popular with certain groups but popularity has never been a requirement for salvation.

Matthew 13:1-9

Parables of the Kingdom

Today we come to the third of the five discourses of Jesus found in Matthew’s gospel. It consists entirely of parables about the Kingdom of Heaven, as Matthew calls it. It might be helpful to go back to Monday of the 10th Week and look again at what is said there about the meaning of ‘Kingdom of heaven’. Briefly to repeat, we are talking about, not a place and still less a place in the future life, but a network of people and communities who are committed to all that God is and stands for, as revealed to us through the life and teaching of Jesus. They are those who work that God’s will be done on earth, which is the establishment of the Kingdom.

These parables then are images that Jesus gives to help us understand how we are to enter into and become part of that Kingdom, of that kingship of God to which we adhere with all our heart and soul.

Our passage begins with Jesus leaving the house. Our reading leaves out the first phrase “That same day”. What day? and What house? It seems that Matthew is linking the parables of the Kingdom with the scene we had yesterday about those who are on “inside” and those on the “outside”. The house - whose ownership is never referred to and we know that Jesus had no house of his own - seems to refer to any place where people are gathered together with Jesus. “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them” (Matthew 18:20). And wherever people are closely related with Jesus, not just physically but intentionally, that is to be on the “inside” and it is also to be part of the Kingdom.

We are told that the crowds wanting to listen to Jesus were so great that he had to use a boat moored near the shore to speak to them. In the Gospel, the boat also often represents the Church or the Christian community from which Jesus continues to speak his message to the world. We are also told that he spoke to them in parables. Once again, Matthew uses his favourite number by having seven of them. (Just to remind ourselves: there are 2×7 generations in Jesus’ genealogy, 7 Beatitudes, forgiveness not 7 but 77 times, 7 ‘alas’ in the condemnation of the Pharisees and his gospel divided into seven main sections - infancy, five discourses, passion.)

For three days, that is, for the rest of this week, we are going to be considering the first and the longest of the parables, the parable of the sower. First, today, we have the parable itself, then tomorrow some explanation of the role of parables in Jesus’ teaching and, finally on Saturday, an interpretation of the parable.

The parable itself is very straightforward. It speaks about a farmer sowing seed in his field, a typical Palestinian field of the time. It is obviously a very mixed patch of ground. There are paths going across it where people have long established a right of way. There are bits of rock sticking up above the ground with small hollows where water can gather after rain. Ploughing was done after the seed was sown so there are weeds and brambles growing wild all over the place. And then there are parts of the field which have good, fertile soil.

This image largely describes too the field in which Jesus the preacher and teacher is working. It provides very mixed soil and much of the seed does not go very far in producing fruit. All this has been described in what we have already seen of Jesus’ mission among the people, the religious leaders, his own family - and his disciples. It is these latter who are the fertile soil, these are the ones who will enter, who are already entering the Kingdom.

A parable in the Gospel usually makes just one point. In this case the message is that God’s plan will succeed, even though there seem to be setbacks. It was an important message for the early Christians to hear as it is for us today. It is a word of encouragement when Christians see how little success they seem to have at times in their evangelising work. The message is not to worry; God’s Word will prevail, it will always find fertile soil in which to grow and multiply. Indeed, in the past, some communities did fail but overall the Christian communities grew and the message spread to every corner of the world.

And then there is the final exhortation: “Listen, anyone who has ears!” Listening and hearing are not the same. To hear is to be physically capable of picking up sound. To listen presumes attention and awareness; it implies understanding and acceptance and, ultimately, implementation of what is heard.

Am I ready to enter the Kingdom? What kind of soil do I present for the Lord’s Word? Am I really listening to him in the fullest sense?

Week 16 | Thursday

Jer 2:1-3, 7-8, 12-13

We have today a passage from the earliest preaching of Jeremiah (chaps 2-6) which preceded the reforms under King Josiah. They would again become relevant with the relapse of the people into idolatry and the threat of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, when Jehoiakim was king of Judah. The wickedness and backsliding of God’s people will be vividly portrayed in numerous colourful figures of speech.

Today’s passage speaks in touching language of God’s relationship with his backsliding people. The relationship is expressed in terms of a marriage that started so well but went so badly wrong. “I remember,” God says through his prophet, “the affection of your youth, the love of your bridal days.” It is like a husband reminiscing about the days of his first love and the honeymoon period that followed the wedding.

The word for “affection” here translates the Hebrew word hesed. It stands for the intimacy between Israel and God within the covenant, here with the accent on a mutual love. It expresses “the most intimate degree of loyalty, love and faithfulness that can exist between two people or between an individual and the Lord,” as one commentator puts it.

“I remember how you loved me as a bride.” Early in her history, Israel had enjoyed a close and cordial relationship with the Lord, who is often described figuratively as Israel’s husband. Hosea, in particular, loves to use this image. But it was a love that did not last and was transferred later to “foreign gods”. In the days in the Sinai desert, they were with Yahweh but later they followed “worthless idols”. In those early days, they showed their fidelity by following Yahweh “through a land unsown”, arid and infertile, and where they lived in total dependence on Yahweh. Now, in their prosperity, they go for other indulgences.

In those days, they were a people truly sacred to their Lord, set apart to him and his service. They were the first-fruits of his harvest of peoples. The best of the first-fruits of Israel’s crops were supposed to be offered to God as a sign that he was their source; now here God’s people are the first-fruits, the best and choicest of all.

And yet, in spite of all they were given, they betrayed the trust that God had in them and disaster overcame them. God kept his promise and brought them to a “fertile country”, “into the garden land to eat its fruits”. (The word for ‘fertile’ in the Hebrew is karmel, which means ‘orchard’.) This was the Promised Land which was the complete opposite of the “unsown” desert in which they had wandered for 40 years. Everything in the new land was for them. But what did they do? They defiled it, that is, through their idolatrous practices they made the land ceremonially unclean. “You made my heritage loathsome.” What had been God’s inheritance given to them became hateful in God’s eyes.

The very priests no longer paid attention to God. “They never even bothered to ask, ‘Where is the Lord?’” They never consulted Yahweh. Those same priests whose responsibility it was to administer the Law had become strangers to God. “Those who dealt with the Law”, namely, the priests, “knew me not”. “The shepherds,” that is, the king and the ruling classes, “rebelled against me.” The prophets prophesied in the name of Baal and not of Yahweh, putting their trust in “useless idols” which were utterly powerless.

God, through Jeremiah, calls on the heavens to witness to this appalling situation. “Stand aghast, you heavens!” In the Hebrew it is a powerful combination of similar-sounding words: “shommu shamayim”

The people have committed a double crime. On the one hand, they have turned their backs on God, the source of living water, of true life.

At the same time, they have tried to provide water themselves in cisterns that consistently leak and provide no regular supply of water. A kind of watertight plaster was used to prevent cisterns from leaking. The image here is that the idols, which God’s people are now worshipping, will, like broken cisterns, always fail to provide the people with the life they need. Only Yahweh can provide this water.

The lovely image of God as living water is one that is found often in the Scriptures. “From your delightful stream you give them to drink” (Ps 36:9). “All you who are thirsty come to the water”, cries Isaiah (55:1). Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman of the living water which only he can give (John 4). Again, in the Temple at Jerusalem Jesus cried out to the people around: “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and let the one who believes in me drink. As the Scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:37-38)4). In Revelation, the one on the throne says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life” (Rev 21:6)

In our own days, there are so many, including many who are baptised, who try to replace God, the source of life-giving water, with other things they believe will provide the happiness and contentment they seek. It may be money in all its forms, success, fame, popularity, material goods, sex… Yet all these are in the long run (and often enough in the short run) no better than leaking cisterns which (to mix the metaphor!) quickly turn to bitter-tasting ashes.

Let us learn to see that the vision of Jesus is truly the Way, the way to wholeness and life.

Matthew 13:10-17

Today’s passage forms an interlude between the parable of the sower and its interpretation. Jesus is asked by his disciples why he speaks to the people in parables. The implication is that he does not speak in parables to his own disciples.

It would be possible to interpret Jesus’ reply as meaning that he speaks clearly to his disciples but to the people in riddles because they are outsiders. This would seem to contradict the purpose of speaking in parables which is to use helpful and familiar images in order to lead towards a better understanding of a deeper message. (The parable of the sower is a good example.)

The Jerusalem Bible sees it somewhat differently: “Those who saw so dimly could be further blinded by the light of full revelation. Jesus, therefore, does not reveal with complete clarity the true nature of the messianic kingdom which is unostentatious. Instead he filters the light through symbols, the resulting half-light is nevertheless a grace from God, an invitation to ask for something better and accept something greater.”

It seems that we are dealing here again with the difference between ‘insiders’ and the ‘outsiders’. The ‘insiders’ are those who give Jesus a ready hearing. Naturally, they are more open to hear about the ‘mysteries’ of the kingdom and to assimilate what they hear. The ‘outsiders’, on the other hand, are precisely that because they have closed minds, they are not ready to listen.

In the particular context of Matthew’s gospel, those who refuse to listen are those who have rigidly bound themselves within the confines of the Mosaic Law and who refuse to listen to the message of Jesus which is a “fulfilment” as well as being a radical restatement of the Law and the proclamation of a totally new covenant in the person of Jesus as Messiah. Or, as the Jerusalem Bible puts it: “The ill-disposed will even lose what they have, namely, that Jewish Law which, without the perfection Christ brings to it, is destined to become obsolete.”

This gives meaning to the words which Jesus uses. Speaking of the ‘insiders’ he says, “To the one who has, more will be given until he grows rich; the one who has not, will lose what little he has.” Those who have opened themselves to the Word of God will find themselves evermore enriched, while those who have not even begun to accept the Word will end up in even a worse situation than they are now. Similarly, those to whom the parables are addressed, “look but do not see, listen but do not hear or understand”. This happens, not because the parables are difficult but because the hearers are not prepared to listen. In fact, they are, one might almost say, watered down and easily digestible versions of the full message.

And Jesus quotes words of Isaiah which are not meant to be understood as God deliberately blocking his Word reaching people; this would not make any sense. The prophet is better understand as speaking in a strongly sarcastic tone:

Listen as you will, you shall not understand,

look intently as you will, you shall not see.

Sluggish indeed is this people’s heart

That is the problem.

They have scarcely heard with their ears,

they have firmly closed their eyes.

And why have they acted like this?

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

and hear with their ears,

and understand with their hearts.

And what would be the result of that? They might

turn back to me

and I should heal them.

That is where the issue lies. If we are prepared to see and to listen, it will mean a radical change in our lives, in our attitudes, in our values and priorities, in our relationships. Many are not ready to have their lives turned upside down. They prefer to remain blind and deaf.

On the contrary, Jesus says to the ‘insiders’: “Blest are your eyes because they see [understand and accept] and blest are your ears because they hear [listen, accept and carry out].” And, to the extent that we have become ‘insiders’ with Christ, we too are deeply blessed. But we do need to be sensitive to our own tendencies not to see or not to listen because of our unreadiness to go all the way in our following Jesus, our reluctance to let go and make the changes in our lives he is asking of us.

Week 16 | Friday

Jer 3:14-17

Today we are given an optimistic vision of Zion in the messianic age.

Jeremiah, in spite of his reputation, is not all gloom and doom. It was, of course, an important role of the prophet to point out the people’s shortcomings and to warn them of the consequences of their lifestyle. But it was also his (one seldom hears of female prophets) role to bring a message of hope and to raise the morale of people who were oppressed or depressed.

Today’s reading is a message of hope for a people whose city has been destroyed and who have been carried away into exile in Babylon. Now the prophet is calling them to come back - not only to their city but also to following the will of their God. He calls them “disloyal” children and reminds them that God alone is their husband and master.

The Hebrew word here for “husband/master” is ba’al, which, of course, is also the name given to the false gods that the Jews of the time had, under the influence of their conquerors, been worshipping. Jeremiah is calling on his people to have only one ba’al or master, namely Yahweh.

Now comes the promise. The people will return to Zion or Jerusalem but in very small numbers, “one from a town, two from a clan”. They are the remnant of Judah who will carry on the covenant promises of the Messiah to come.

They will have shepherds, that is, rulers, who, like David of old, will be “after my own heart”. They will be wise and prudent shepherds, unlike the corrupt and idolatrous rulers who led them to their downfall and exile.

“In those days”, that is, in the age of the Messiah, the remnant that has returned to Jerusalem will grow in numbers, yet no one will ask “Where is the ark of the covenant of the Lord?” It is clear that the ark had been carried away or destroyed with the pillaging of the Temple by the Babylonians but this will not matter.

The Ark of the Covenant, formerly symbolising God’s royal presence will be irrelevant when the Messiah comes. “There will be no thought of it, no memory of it, no regret for it, no making of another.” For the city of Jerusalem itself will become the “Throne of the Lord” to which all the nations will assemble. Formerly, the Lord had been “enthroned between the cherubim” above the Ark.

Moreover, “all nations will be gathered together to honour the name of the Lord in Jerusalem”. And they will no longer “follow the dictates of their own stubborn hearts” when, as in the past, they refused to listen to the Lord and worshipped instead idols made by human hands.

Unlikely as it must have seemed at the time, Jerusalem did indeed become a place where the nations assembled. It became the place where the Messiah, the Christ, sealed the New Covenant in his own blood. It was the place where the people converged from all over the Mediterranean and, on the day of Pentecost, heard the Good News proclaimed in a language they could perfectly understand.

And, from Jerusalem, the message fanned out to the four points of the compass and eventually to every corner of the world. This is the theme of the Acts of the Apostles.

Jeremiah’s hearers never lived to see that day but he was accurate in everything he foretold. We, on the other hand, are the beneficiaries. How are we responding to this tremendous gift of God’s love? To what extent have we heard and assimilated the Message? And what difference does our way of life make to those around us? The Messianic Age continues but it depends on us to make it visible. The realisation of the Messianic Age is the coming of the Reign of God into our world.

There is a lot of work still to be done!

Matthew 13:18-23

We come today to the explanation of the parable of the sower. Perhaps we should rather say an interpretation. It is presented as coming from Jesus but it is likely to have come from the tradition of the early Church. There is quite a different emphasis between the original parable and this interpretation. The parable focuses on the sower and the ultimate and inevitable success of his work. The interpretation, however, looks much more at the soil in which the seed falls. The interpretation reflects the experiences of the early Church as it tried to spread the Gospel. The four different kinds of soil are taken to represent four kinds of responses to the Word of God which it has received.

The first kind is like the seed on the stony path. The Word of God never even gets started but gets plucked away by the evil influences by which the person is surrounded. In our strongly secular world today it is not easy for the Word to take root with so many competing enticements.

The second kind is like the seed that falls on the rock. The Word of God is received with great enthusiasm; the person becomes a devout and active Christian. But, if obstacles arise which make the living of the Christian life difficult, the person falls away, maybe quickly, maybe gradually. As the Gospel says, the person has no roots; the faith has not gone deep, it is has not been really assimilated. This must have been the case with many in the early Church who enthusiastically embraced Christianity but when persecution came, abandoned their faith. In our own time, we see this often enough when people, for instance, are removed from a protected environment where it is easy to live the faith to one where the faith is ignored or even ridiculed.

The third kind is like the seed that falls among the briars and brambles. I would suggest that a very large number of us are touched by this category. Anxieties about many things and the lure of material goods can gradually choke off our commitment to the Gospel in its fullness. Our witness becomes seriously compromised and “there is no yield”, that is, we make no real contribution to building the Kingdom and changing the world. We sit on the fence and try to have the best of both worlds; we try to serve God and mammon, which Jesus says is not possible. I am sure many of us have matter for reflection here.

Finally, there is the fourth kind of seed which falls on good soil. This is the one “who hears the message and takes it in”. These hear the Word, accept the Word, make it their own and it overflows into all they are and do and say. Much fruit for the world comes from such persons.

These four types can still be found and it is for each one of us to determine to which group we belong.

Week 16 | Saturday

Jer 7:1-11

Today we read Jeremiah’s famous ‘Temple Sermon’. At the Jerusalem Temple itself Jeremiah preached against the shallow, superstitious trust in Temple sacrifices. True religion, he said, is on the inside and results in external works of justice and charity.

Today’s passage is the opening of a set of oracles dating mainly from the reign of King Jehoiakim, about 608 BC. The opening theme is true worship and today’s passage deals with worship in the Temple.

Later on, in chapter 26, Jeremiah will describe the events prompting this oracle. The belief that the Temple was made holy by the very presence of Yahweh in the Holy of Holies led to the conviction that it could never be destroyed by pagan enemies. This was further strengthened when Sennacherib was forced to withdraw in 701 BC because of the epidemic that decimated his army at the walls of the city. The sanguine belief now was that Yahweh would protect them again in some similar way.

But Jeremiah is going to shock his countrymen by telling them, as Micah did earlier, that their confidence had no foundation and that God could abandon his Temple. Ezekiel would also have a vision of the glory of Yahweh abandoning the sanctuary. This, of course, happened when Nebuchadnezzar razed Jerusalem and the Temple later, in 587 BC. It would happen in a far more significant way when, at the death of Jesus the Messiah, the veil of the Temple was torn apart, signifying that the Lord was no longer present in the Holy of Holies but in the Risen Body of Jesus - the Christian community.

So, at the instructions of the Lord, Jeremiah stood at the gate between the inner and outer courts of the temple (perhaps the so-called ‘New’ Gate) to proclaim God’s message to the people. The words are addressed to all those “who enter these gates”, that is, the gates leading from the outer courts to the inner courts (of the women and beyond that of the men). They are being given a very clear warning: if they want God to remain among his people in this land, then they must change their ways and abandon their sinful and immoral behaviour.

There is no use in their trying to reassure themselves by constantly taking refuge in the Temple and constantly repeating: “This is the sanctuary of the Lord, this is the sanctuary of the Lord…”, as if that were a guarantee that nothing could happen to them. This was the kind of meaningless prayer urged on them by false prophets, who raised false and optimistic expectations. Later, Jesus would also point out the uselessness of such superstitious babbling (Matt 6:7).

The idea that God would not destroy Jerusalem simply because his dwelling, the Temple, was located there was a delusion, fostered in part by the miraculous delivery of the city during the reign of Hezekiah, when, as mentioned, Sennacherib’s army was struck down by a mysterious epidemic. In the light of Judah’s sinful rebellion against the Lord such an idea was “worthless”.

On the other hand, if they did change their ways and their behaviour, then God would stay forever with them in the land which he had given to their ancestors in perpetuity. The changes that Jeremiah suggests include treating others with justice, not exploiting foreign immigrants and outsiders, orphans or widows, not shedding innocent blood (as in the frightening example of King Manasseh, who “shed so much innocent blood as to fill the length and breadth of Jerusalem” [2 Kings 21:16]) and following alien gods who can only bring them harm..

However, they are instead putting their trust in deceptive words, the words of false prophets who had assured them that God would never allow Jerusalem to be destroyed because his house, the Temple, was there. This assurance had been strengthened, as we mentioned, by the miraculous delivery of the city during the reign of King Hezekiah. In Jeremiah’s eyes there was no justification for such confidence.

Why? Because on the one hand they stole, murdered, committed adultery, perjured themselves, worshipped the god Baal and other alien gods whose origin they hardly knew, behaviour which would result in their being carried off into lands they did not know. In this one sentence, Jeremiah includes the violation of no less than five of the Ten Commandments.

At the same time, the people brazenly entered the Temple, the house that bears God’s Name and where he is present, thinking that doing so would fully protect them from the effects of their behaviour. And just as robbers try to escape justice by taking refuge in caves, so God’s people treated the very house of God. Later on, Jesus would quote this sentence in accusing people of his own time of doing commercial business inside the Temple precincts. “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations. But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17. The first half of this quotation comes from Isaiah 56:7).

It is very possible for us Christians to act in similar ways. There are even those who say by their behaviour, if not actually in words, “Let’s eat, drink and be merry; let’s have a great time and break all the rules. Later on, we can go to Confession and have it all straightened out.” It is a very foolish policy and a dangerous one. Remember the man in the Gospel who had made his pile and then sat down to enjoy it. He died that night.

We must be careful not to abuse the privileges and helps that our Christian faith and our membership of the Christian community give. Our only true guarantee of security is a life that is centred on God and totally in harmony with truth, love and justice. It is not just what we do in church that indicates our relationship with God but even more how in our everyday life we deal with our brothers and sisters, especially those who are in need of any kind.

Our worship is not a guarantee of protection but a sign of where the desires of our heart truly lie.

Matthew 13:24-30

The next parable, which is only found in Matthew, is also about the planting of seed but the concern is quite different and again it reflects the experience of the early Church.

A man has sown good seed in his field but, unknown to him, an enemy has come and planted weeds among the wheat. As the plants come up the farmer sees the weeds growing all through his wheat. His slaves want to pull them out but the farmer tells them to wait until the harvest time. The wheat and the weeds are similar in appearance in the early stages and it will be much easier to differentiate them as they mature. In the meantime, let both grow side by side.

This is a picture of the Kingdom and also of the Church which is trying to be part of it. For the early Church more distressing in many ways than persecution from outside must have been betrayal and shortcomings on the inside. There would have been a strong temptation immediately to get rid of such people. But wiser heads prevailed. Wait. Let God be the judge and, in any case, people can change. The sinner of today may be the saint of tomorrow.

This has been a problem all through the history of the Church and today is no exception. There is always a strong temptation among those who feel themselves more committed to living out the Gospel to adopt an elitist approach to the faith. This can take two forms: either members who are seen as falling short of the Church’s requirements in faith and behaviour are got rid of, or, which may be more common, those who see themselves more committed form a relatively closed group, a church within a church. There has been a certain amount of tension over such situations with the appearance of a number of Catholic movements in recent times.

Today’s parable reminds us of something very important, namely, that the Church is and always will be a Church of sinners and for sinners. Our Church is, as Paul puts it, a vessel of clay, leaking and easily broken. At the same time, we have been called to help bring about the Kingdom in our world and we have constantly to try to do that. But we need to distinguish between the vessel and its contents, the weeds and the wheat, to distinguish between the Christian vision and the Church which tries to communicate it.

Some have been disturbed by so-called ‘scandals’ and some have left the Church because of them. This, I feel, is not to understand today’s parable. These scandals far from undermining the Christian vision only affirm it. That vision remains a shining ideal. But the Church, which is not to be identified with the vision, is the flawed and fragile bearer of that vision. It has always been so and always will be. The Church is called to proclaim the Kingdom but it has to struggle to realise that Kingdom in itself also.

Today’s parable is a call for tolerance, patience, compassion and understanding while not compromising on the vision that comes to us from Jesus.

Week 17 | Monday

Jer 13:1-11

Today’s passage presents the symbol of the loincloth. It describes not something that actually happened but a symbolic vision. The meaning is clear: Israel, whom Yahweh had fastened as close to himself as a loincloth round his waist, had broken away and contracted the corruption of Babylonian idolatry. Not infrequently the prophets like to present the Lord’s message in the form of symbolic images, something like parables.

The prophet is told by Yahweh to purchase a linen loincloth and put it round his waist and he does so. Linen was the material from which the robes of the priests were made and was symbolic of Israel’s holiness as a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6). So the linen loincloth or belt was a symbol of the formerly close relationship between God and his people. Jeremiah is also told not to put the loincloth in water, a symbol perhaps of the sinful pride of Judah, which did not want to be washed clean.

Later Jeremiah is told to take the loincloth around his waist and to hide it in a hole in a rock near the Perath, another name for the River Euphrates. The river Euphrates which flowed through Babylonia is here a symbol of the corrupting Assyrian and Babylonian influences which began during the reign of Ahaz and which brought about Judah’s abandonment of Yahweh for the idols of their conquerors.

The Perath may, however, refer to Parah (see Joshua 18:23), which was near the modern Wadi Farah, three miles northeast of Anathoth (Jeremiah’s birthplace). Since in other contexts the Hebrew for Perath refers to the river Euphrates, it serves as an appropriate symbol of the corrupting Assyrian and Babylonian influence on Judah that began during the reign of Ahaz. It is more likely that Jeremiah would have been told to put the loincloth in a place easily accessible to him. In any case, the symbol has the same connotation.

Jeremiah hides the loincloth, as instructed. After a considerable length of time Yahweh tells the prophet to retrieve the loincloth. The hiding of the loincloth for a long time beside the river represents the period of exile of the Jewish people in Babylon.

When Jeremiah found it, it had become filthy dirty and was fit for nothing, least of all to be worn. Clearly it had become dirty from contamination with the place where it was concealed.

The meaning of the symbol of the loincloth is then spelt out clearly:

The people of the southern kingdom of Judah and its capital Jerusalem are going to be punished for their arrogance and pride. “I will allow the pride of Judah to rot, the great pride of Jerusalem… This evil people who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the dictates of their own hard hearts, who have followed alien gods, and served them and worshipped them, let them become like this loincloth, good for nothing.”

That had not been God’s idea originally. He had wanted the whole House of Judah to be in close and intimate relationship with him as a loincloth clings to a man’s waist. They were “to be my people, my glory, my honour and my boast”.

Unfortunately, in their arrogance and pride, they refused to listen. Now they will pay the price of their infidelity. They will be carried away by the very creators of the idols they worshipped.

Once again we are being asked to reflect on the idols in our own lives. What are the things, what are the desires and ambitions which come between us and our relationship with God? Do we try to compromise, to sit on the fence, try to have our cake and eat it? Do we try at the same time to serve God and ‘mammon’, something Jesus said was impossible?

Where your treasure is, there your heart is too, Jesus said on another occasion. Where and what is my treasure in life? How close am I to my God and his ways?

Matthew 13:31-35

Two short parables which reflect both the experience of the early Church and also highlight features of the Kingdom. Considering when they were written, they exude an extraordinary level of trust and confidence in God’s power, a trust which was not disappointed although the results were not seen for generations.

The first is the parable of the mustard seed.

The mustard seed is not actually the smallest seed known today, but it was the smallest seed used by Palestinian farmers and gardeners. Nor did it, strictly speaking, produce the largest of trees but, under favourable conditions, it could reach some 10 feet (or 3 metres) in height, big enough to provide shelter for birds.

The early Church, scattered in tiny communities, largely cut off from each other, all over the Mediterranean area must have felt very small, very vulnerable. The idea that in time it would become the central cultural influence all over Europe, Roman and barbarian, must have been beyond the wildest dreams of those early Christians. But that tiny seed did become a large tree providing shelter and comfort to millions and, from the Mediterranean, spread to every corner of the world.

The parable of the yeast in the dough is similar but with a different nuance.

In the Bible, yeast is usually a symbol of that which is evil and corrupt. Jesus warned his disciples about the yeast of the Pharisees (Mk 8:15). Similarly, at the Passover, the Jews eat unleavened bread, that is, bread free from leaven or yeast. In this parable, however, it is presented as a symbol of growth.

A tiny amount of yeast put into a large batch of dough produces striking results. (The 3 measures would produce enough to feed 100 people!) A dough batch, over a matter of hours, can swell to twice its original size as the process of fermentation takes place. The effects of the yeast, quite invisible, reach to every corner. Again, when this was written, that was not yet the case. The Church had made very little impact on its surrounding societies. But, over the years, its influence grew until Christianity became the prevailing faith and cultural influence of the whole of Europe and then continued to spread out to other parts of the world.

This parable points to a very important element in the life and work of the Church. It only exerts its influence when it is totally immersed in the society it wishes to reach and influence. And it can do this while still being only a small part of the whole. While never identifying itself with many of the prevailing ideologies and values of our societies, Christian communities must at the same time never separate themselves from their surroundings. There is a danger that we become inward-looking and spend most of our energies on the already converted. There is a strong evangelising element in this parable which cannot be ignored.

We need to remember that these are primarily parables of the Kingdom and not just of the Church, which is the imperfect sign of the work of the Kingdom going on in our world. And what these parables say applies first of all to the work of building the Kingdom in our world - it is a work which will go on inexorably, because it is based on truth, love and justice, and which slowly penetrates every corner of every society.

We can become aware to the point of depression at the amount of evil that we see around us and yet there is a gradual forward movement at all levels. But, as the previous parable reminds us, the wheat has always to co-exist with the weeds - both inside and outside the Church, both inside and outside the Kingdom.

Today’s reading concludes with a repetition of the statement that Jesus only spoke to the crowds in parables. And Matthew sees this as the fulfilment of a prophetic text from the Old Testament. It is in fact a quotation from Psalm 78:2 - “I will open my mouth in a parable.”

Week 17 | Tuesday

Jer 14:17-22

This passage was written during a period of death and famine in Jerusalem preceding the Babylonian captivity in 587 BC. It is also a response to Yahweh’s anger against false prophets who are raising expectations among the people that they are not going to experience “sword, famine and pestilence”. In fact, they are going to experience all these things. Jeremiah, as a true prophet, will not raise such expectations but, however unpopular his words, warn them of what is coming - and why. This won’t make him very popular; real prophets seldom are.

As written, however, today’s passage is another lovely reading today full of compassion and tenderness. There is no anger in God’s words today against his people. Rather he is presented as deeply upset over their sufferings.

“Tears flood my eyes… since a crushing blow falls on the daughter of my people.” The ‘daughter’ is Jerusalem. Everywhere God sees people in the countryside killed by the sword and in the city sick with hunger. Even the prophets and priests, who would normally be supported by the people, are reduced to foraging for food “in a land they know not”. All are at their wits’ end.

Jeremiah then expresses his own distress at what is happening and wonders what the Lord is doing about it. “Have you rejected Judah altogether?… Why have you struck us down without hope of cure?”

It is the cry of a people deep in despair at their never-ending sufferings.

“We were hoping for peace - no good came of it!

We wait for a time of healing - but terror comes instead!”

At the same time, the prophet acknowledges that his people are in no way innocent. They have brought their own tribulations on themselves. “We do confess our wickedness… we have indeed sinned against you.”

But he reminds the Lord that they are his own people and, for his own Name’s sake, he prays that they not be rejected. “Remember your covenant with us and break it not.” Their suffering and shame somehow reduces the glory of their God, especially in the eyes of Gentiles. Who could honour a God who allows his people to suffer in this way?

But it takes two to make a covenant and its observance depends on both sides keeping their promise. He is their God but they are his people and must show it by their behaviour. This they have miserably failed to do.

The prophet concludes by appealing to the unique power of their God. “Can any of the pagan Nothings make it rain? Can the heavens produce showers?” We remember the challenge that Elijah made to the priests of Baal about breaking a drought. Only Yahweh could bring the longed-for rain.

“Oh, our God, you are our only hope,
since it is you who do all this.”

We see here, on the one side, the picture of the tender God who cares so deeply for his people. This was all so graphically illustrated by the life of Jesus, our God incarnate. We must never forget it.

On the other side, during times of tragedy, pain, loss or distress it is easy for us to wonder if our God really does care that he allows such terrible things to happen to us or to our loved ones. But it is precisely at such times we need to be aware of the closeness of God’s love to us. His love for us was most clearly shown as Jesus hung dying in terribly agony and shame on the Cross.

“God did not spare his own Son” and Jesus himself cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The words died on his lips and were followed by total acceptance when he said, “It is finished” and he surrendered his life into his Father’s hands. That was the moment of supreme love, the moment of new life and glory.

Matthew 13:35-43

Today we have an interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the weeds or darnel. It begins by telling us that Jesus left the crowds and went to “the house”. This is the nameless place where Jesus is at home with his disciples. As we suggested earlier, it is the place for the ‘insiders’, those who are close to Jesus in the sense of following him and accepting his way and is a symbol of where communities of Christians gathered in the early Church. Here Jesus is alone with his own disciples, away from the crowd.

His disciples ask for an explanation of the parable about the wheat and the weeds. Likely enough, what follows is less the actual words of Jesus than a reflection of the early Christian community applying the parable to their own situation. The parable, which basically makes one point, is now turned into an allegory where each part has a symbolic meaning of its own.

The sower is Jesus himself;
the field is the world;
the good seed represents the subjects of the Kingdom;
the darnel, the subjects of the evil one;
the enemy who sowed the weeds, the devil;
the harvest is the end of the world;
the reapers are the angels.

Whereas in the original parable the emphasis seems to be more on the necessary and unavoidable coexistence of good and bad within the Christian community, the emphasis here is more on what will happen at the end: the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good.

Let us pray that we may be found among the good seed of the Kingdom. We do that by opening ourselves fully to Jesus our King and Lord and following the way he asks us to follow.

Week 17 | Wednesday

Jer 15:10, 16-21

The call of Jeremiah is renewed. We have today the third of Jeremiah’s so-called “confessions”, in which he bares his soul to God. It includes two responses from the Lord, of which part of one is included in today’s reading.

Jeremiah is experiencing a spiritual crisis half-way through his ministry and is feeling very sorry for himself. Here, God, far from issuing sympathetic noises, tells him to get his act together and to stop his orgy of self-pity. He calls Jeremiah back to a new conversion and renews, in almost the same words, the commands and promises of the prophet’s original call.

(For a helpful picture of Jeremiah and his difficulties, see the Introduction to the Prophets in the New Jerusalem Bible.)

The tone is set by the opening words: “Woe is me!” The reason for Jeremiah’s moaning is that he has become, as a prophet, a source of strife and dissension. He regrets that his mother gave birth to him to have to face such problems in his prophetic calling. He sees himself merely as a source of strife and division everywhere.

“I have neither lent nor borrowed,” he says and yet he has all this trouble, everyone is against him. We know how lending or borrowing money can be a serious source of friction and even violence between lenders and borrowers.

“Your anger is very slow” he complains to God. The people causing him so much trouble are those he is accusing of being unfaithful and disobedient to God but they are being allowed to get away with it. Where is God’s protection for his prophet?

“Realise that I suffer insult for your sake,” he says in case his God is not aware of what he is going through and who is the real cause of his troubles. It does not make sense because he has been so faithful to God and his Law. “When your words came, I devoured them: your word was my delight and the joy of my heart.” He had made God’s word and God’s law his very own; he had assimilated them into his very being. For he had been called in Yahweh’s name; he belonged to Yahweh in a special way.

He never had anything to do with “scoffers”, the rich and the arrogant who felt they were above any law, including God’s. They were those who mocked at and rejected the message he brought. Under God’s constraint, he “held himself aloof” in the sense that he never married and he had few friends because “with [God’s] hand” on him he felt that that was part of his calling. Part of his loneliness was his distancing himself with indignation at the sins of Judah. The prophet’s lot can be a lonely one.

Why, then, does he have to suffer such continuous pain from a wound that will not heal? “Do you mean for me to be a deceptive stream with inconstant waters?” God has become for him a treacherous brook, whose waters are inconstant. Jeremiah here, with a hint of sarcasm, accuses God of being undependable, in contrast to the Lord’s own earlier description of himself as a “spring of living water”. In Jer 2:13 Yahweh had said: “My people have forsaken me, the source of living waters” (see Thursday of Week 16).

Yahweh then replies to Jeremiah’s “confession”. The Lord commands Jeremiah to repent, then encourages him and renews his call. If Jeremiah is willing to return then God will happily take him back into his service. But there is a condition. He must speak “noble, not despicable” thoughts, like those he has just been uttering. Only then can he truly act as the “mouth” or spokesperson of God. Those negatives thoughts will come back to him but he must not go back to them.

If he follows the Lord’s command, then the Lord guarantees that he will be strong enough to face any opposition. “I will make you a bronze wall fortified against this people.” But there is no promise that life will be any easier. On the contrary, “they will fight against you but they will not overcome you”. Why? “Because I am with you to save you and deliver you.” A solemn pledge - “it is the Lord who speaks”.

Persecution and rejection is almost inevitable for anyone who takes a prophetic stance in the Church or outside it. The prophet, by his or her calling, calls into question the conventional wisdom of a society or church.

It is the role of the prophet not so much to tell the future as to point out the direction in which the community should be going, what it should be doing and what it should not be doing, and what the consequences of its actions are likely to be.

Sometimes the prophet, in order to be heard, may speak in very clear and blunt language. This is not likely to enhance his popularity with those who become the object of his attacks or criticisms.

Jesus told us to love unconditionally and to forgive for ever but he never, never said that we would be loved in return. On the contrary, he said that among the ‘blessed’ would be included those who suffered persecution for the sake of the Gospel.

Jeremiah does not seem to have understood this fully. He felt that because of his loyalty to God he should have been protected by God and respected by the people. He told God this in no uncertain terms. In reply he was told that, as a prophet, he would continue to be scorned and rejected but that he would be given the strength to carry on. We cannot expect anything different.

Matthew 13:44-46

Today we read the 5th and 6th parables which have basically the same message but with some difference in emphasis.

In the first, a man unexpectedly discovers treasure in a field and quickly puts it back again. In ancient times it was common to hide treasure in the ground since there were no banks as we know them. There were, however, “bankers”, people who could handle money, probably closer to what we would call moneylenders. (Remember the parable of the talents where the man who hid his talent was told he should have deposited it with a banker so that it could earn interest. Instead, he did what someone in this parable had done - buried it in a field.)

The finder then goes and quietly buys the field, selling everything he has in order to do so; the treasure is now his.

In the second parable, a jewel merchant comes across a magnificent pearl. Again, he sells all the lesser pearls he already has in order to gain possession of it.

These, Jesus says, are images of the Kingdom. There is a significant difference between them. In the first parable, the man comes on the treasure purely by accident. He was not looking for anything like that. He just came across it while working in someone else’s field. That is the way that Christ can come into some people’s lives. They are living their lives with a greater or lesser degree of happiness and satisfaction and then, out of the blue, they are brought face to face with the Christian message. It can happen in so many ways and has been described in many accounts of conversion. The effect is to turn their whole life around.

In the second case, the man is looking for something. He has a very definite goal in mind - the perfect pearl. Similarly, a person can be looking for real meaning in their life. They may have tried many things already with only partial satisfaction. Then they come across the Gospel of Jesus and they know that here is the answer they have been looking for. Everything else is abandoned as they focus entirely on following the Way of Jesus. They know that this is it.

Once we truly understand what it really means to live under the Lordship of God, once we have a full understanding of the vision of life that Jesus proposes, then everything else pales into insignificance. And, whatever enticements may come our way, we know that there is no other way to go. Jesus is the Way. Jesus is Truth and Jesus is Life. We would not exchange his Way for anything.

Week 17 | Thursday

Jer 18:1-6

Today, Jeremiah visits a potter.

The three chapters of which today’s reading is the beginning consist of lessons that God taught Jeremiah at a potter’s workshop. The date is believed to be before 605 BC. The message is clear: as the potter has total control over his clay and makes of it what he wills, so is the Lord master of his people. They are like clay in his hands.

Once again we see how the prophet uses a symbol from daily life to give a message about God’s relationship with his people. (Remember on Monday we had the image of the loincloth.)

The Jerusalem Bible makes the following comment (edited):

The time of this enacted parable is before 598 BC, since the great disaster (the exile into Babylon) has not yet taken place. Symbolic gesture had accompanied the preaching of the earliest prophets, of Samuel for example, or Ahijah of Shiloh, and of the false prophet Zedekiah. This procedure was not simply a dramatisation of the spoken prophecy: it was a pre-enactment of the event threatened or promised, in such a way that the event itself became as inevitable as the gesture was irrevocable.

The same phenomenon recurs among the ‘writing’ prophets. Hosea’s whole mission is inextricable from a symbolic action which in turn is his private predicament, namely, his difficult marriage. With Isaiah the symbolic gesture is found less frequently, though cf. Is 20 and the symbolic names he gives to his children.

Jeremiah performs, or interprets, many symbolic actions: the almond tree and the pot; the hidden loincloth (though this seems only to have been enacted in vision); the potter; the jug; the figs; the yoke; the buying of the field. To which we may add that his life itself is a symbol and that his sufferings (though he gives this no emphasis) identify him in advance with the nation itself about to suffer, and make him foreshadow the suffering servant of Yahweh.

Later, Ezekiel was to perform more symbolic actions: the brick ‘besieged’; the rationed food; the hair; the mime of the exile; the pot; the two sticks; and he too, like Hosea, interprets his personal experience symbolically: his illness, his wife’s death, his dumbness and recovery.

Symbolism of this kind is also found in the New Testament, for example, the fig tree cursed by Jesus and the prophecy of Agabus in the Acts 21:11 in which by a symbolic gesture he prophesies the future arrest of Paul.

In today’s reading Jeremiah is told to go down to the potter’s house. It was probably situated on the slopes of the Valley of Ben Hinnom near what was known as the Potsherd Gate (perhaps because broken and discarded pottery was piled there).

The prophet sees the potter working at his wheel. The wheel consisted of two horizontal stone disks. Both were attached to an upright shaft, one end of which was sunk permanently into the ground. The potter would spin the lower wheel with his foot and work the clay on the upper wheel which was also turning.

Jeremiah noticed that if the vessel being made turned out wrong, which happened often, he would start all over again to get exactly the shape he wanted. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for “going wrong” here is the same as that describing the ruined loincloth in Monday’s reading.

The message is then given. Can God not do with his people just as the potter does? “Yes, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so you are in mine, House of Israel.” It is an image found elsewhere in Scripture. And the Hebrew word for ‘potter’ is translated elsewhere as ‘Maker’ with reference to God.

The lesson tells us a number of things.

- Man proposes but God disposes. We can make as many plans as we like in our lives but in the end we are always the subject of forces totally beyond our control. This applies to all, rich and poor, powerful and weak.

- This does not mean that we are to go through life passively and fatalistically and just let things happen to us. We cannot just write off things as “fate” or say that “I am an unlucky person”.

- What it does mean is that we are actively to seek what God wants from us in life and actively to accept what clearly is his will for us. Life and freedom and peace consist in making God’s will and our will to be in perfect harmony. I want what he wants. As Paul puts it, writing to the Romans, “Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?” (Rom 9:21)

God may be a potter but he is a good one and wants to produce the very best product possible. For that, though, he needs my cooperation. I cannot make life in the way that I want it but, by allowing myself to be moulded by him, I can be all that I can be.

Matthew 13:47-53

We come to the seventh and last of the parables in this discourse. Of course, we need to remind ourselves that Jesus did not speak them one after the other as they are presented here. They are the work of the author’s editing, putting matters with a common theme into one place.

Today’s Kingdom parable points to the end of time. There will come a time for the end of the Kingdom on earth and then those who belong and those who do not will be clearly distinguished and separated from each other. That is something which cannot and should not be done now as the parable of the weeds indicated.

When will that end be? That, of course, we do not know - fortunately! But one thing we do know is that our own end will come in a relatively short time, even if we live to be 100. And when that happens, it will be clear to God, if not to others, whether we are leaving this world in the Kingdom or outside it, that is, whether we are with God or against him.

How can we make sure we are in the right place? By making sure that I get confession and the ‘last sacraments’ before I die? Don’t bet on it! The best guarantee is to enrol in the Kingdom today and every day, to live, with Christ’s help, in the way he has shown us. If we do that on a day to day basis the future will take care of itself and there is no need to worry.

The whole discourse is then brought to an end by Jesus asking his disciples if they understand what he has been saying and they say they do.

Then Jesus gives a description of the truly learned disciple. He is a “scribe”, an interpreter of God’s Word, who can bring from his storeroom “both the new and the old”, someone who has both the wealth of the Old Testament as well as the vision of the New. “This picture of a ‘scribe who has become a disciple’,” comments the Jerusalem Bible, “sums up the whole ideal of the evangelist and may well be a self-portrait.” The author of this gospel is clearly a Jew who has become a Christian.

As Jesus said earlier, he had not come to destroy the traditions of the ‘old’ Hebrew covenant but to fulfil it with a new covenant. He would equally reject those who abandoned the Hebrew tradition as well as those who rejected the new insights which he brought. This is a process which goes on today in the Christian faith. There is a continuing and creative tension between what has been handed down in the past and the new understandings which arise with changing circumstances. We all have to be both conservative and progressive at the same time!

Week 17 | Friday

Jer 26:1-9

Today’s reading is in historical or biographical form. Some believe these passages may come from the prophet Baruch. It tells of Jeremiah’s discourse to the people warning them about disasters which will come unless they change their ways. His message will not be well received by the priests and people.

It takes place at the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah. The Hebrew term indicates rather the beginning of his first official (calendar) year as king, rather than the time of his immediate succession. This places it in the year 609-608 BC.

Jeremiah is told by Yahweh to go to the Temple court, perhaps near what was called the New Gate, and to speak to all those who had come from the surrounding countryside of Judah to worship. He is to say exactly what Yahweh has told him. Through his prophet, Yahweh promises that, if they listen to Jeremiah and change their ways, he will not bring disaster on them.

The Lord’s warning then comes in the clearest language. If each person listens and turns back from their evil ways, the Lord may repent of the evils he planned to inflict on them. On the other hand, if they will not observe the Law and listen to the words of his prophet, the Temple will end up like Shiloh and the city of Jerusalem will become a curse word among the nations of the earth.

Shiloh was an ancient shrine which was now in ruins. The sanctuary there was apparently destroyed by the Philistines. In the first book of Samuel we read: “Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. And the Ark of God was taken” (1 Sam 4:10-11). Jerusalem, says Yahweh, will meet the same fate. Not surprisingly, this message did not go down well with those who heard it.

The priests and prophets seized Jeremiah and threatened him with death. The phrase they used described the ultimate penalty for those who seriously violated the law of Moses. The ‘prophets’ here are those false prophets who gave upbeat prophecies putting unrealistic hopes in the people’s minds and glossing over their wrongdoings.

All were horrified and enraged that the Temple should become like Shiloh and the city become deserted. These were absolutely unthinkable ideas. How could God allow such a thing to happen?

But it would and very, very soon. And it would happen again about 40 years after the death of Jesus - never to recover. St Augustine had similar feelings when he saw Rome (for him the centre of the world and its civilisation) fall to the ‘barbarian’ invaders.

Once again we see the dangerous vocation of the prophet. He is blessed with a special insight and he can see where the behaviour of people is leading them. He gives warnings but they fall on deaf ears. Even worse, they are rejected and the prophet is seen as an enemy to be got rid of. But he has no option but to continue speaking out.

What makes the matter more complex is that there will be confusion between true and false prophets and often the beguiling messages of the latter will be listened to. Careful discernment is needed to distinguish the genuine prophet from those who either lull us into complacency or, on the other hand, tell us that “the end of the world is nigh”.

Matthew 13:54-58

Immediately following the discourse on the parables of the Kingdom, we see Jesus going to his home town of Nazareth. TheNew American Bible marks this as the beginning of a new section in Matthew’s gospel which it calls ‘Jesus, the Kingdom and the Church’. It ends with chapter 18, which contains the fourth of the five discourses which are distinctive to Matthew.

As was his right, Jesus spent some time teaching in the synagogue at Nazareth. The townspeople were quite amazed to hear the local carpenter’s son speaking as he did. “Where did he get his wisdom and his miraculous powers?” (The New International Version says that the word usually translated ‘carpenter’ could also mean ‘stonemason’.) All his family were well known to the people and they knew he could not have got it from them but they failed to make the next step as to the real origin of what he was saying and doing.

And, in the contrariness of human nature, they were so impressed that they rejected him! He was just too much. A perfect example of familiarity breeding contempt and blinding the eyes to the obvious. And Jesus sadly comments that a prophet can get a hearing everywhere except among his own. Probably all of us have had some experience, directly or indirectly, of this! We Irish, in particular, are well known for our ‘begrudgery’!

It might be helpful for us to see how often and where we ourselves have been guilty of this. How often have we written off what people we know very well, or think we know very well, suggest to us? It is important for us to realise that God can communicate with us through anyone at all and we must never decide in advance who his spokespersons will be.

Finally, we are told that Jesus could not do in Nazareth any of the wonderful things he had done elsewhere “because of their lack of faith”. His hands were tied. Jesus can only help those who are ready to be helped, those who are open to him. How open am I?

Week 17 | Saturday

Jer 26:11-16, 24

Today we have a continuation of yesterday’s reading about the reaction to Jeremiah’s prophecy about the future fate of the Temple and Jerusalem.

We saw yesterday how Jeremiah had been arrested by the religious leaders after he had warned that the Temple and Jerusalem would be reduced to ruins if the people did not change their ways. His words sounded sacrilegious to his hearers and now judgement is being passed on him.

In a verse that comes between the two passages but not in either reading, we are told that the leaders of Judah were told of the situation and held a formal trial at the New Gate of the Temple. The priests and prophets told the leaders and the people gathered round that Jeremiah deserved to die because of what he had said against the Temple and the holy city. His accusers pass sentence on him even before Jeremiah has had a chance to defend himself.

When Jeremiah does get the opportunity to speak, he says that everything he told them came directly from the Lord. They were not his own thoughts. Once again he tells that they have only to change their ways and submit themselves to God’s law and the threatened disaster will not take place. Jeremiah is in their hands and he tells them they can do what they like with him. But, if they execute him, they will have innocent blood on their hands, “since the Lord truly sent me to you to say all these words in your hearing”.

This statement produces a division between the court officials and the people over against the religious leaders, the priests and the prophets. The former say that Jeremiah does not deserve to die because what he has said he has spoken in God’s name.

What happens next in the passage is not contained in our reading (27:17-23). First, some of the elders remind the people that the prophet Micah had made prophecies very similar to those of Jeremiah but he was not condemned to death. He had said that Zion would “become a ploughed field, Jerusalem a heap of ruins”. But then we are told of another prophet by the name of Uriah, who was preaching the same message as Jeremiah. When the king wanted to eliminate him, he fled into Egypt but he was pursued, brought back, executed and dumped in a common grave

However, Jeremiah was rescued from certain death by some high-powered intervention. Ahikam, son of Shaphan, was a highly-placed official, a scribe in the court of King Josiah and always well-disposed to Jeremiah. He was also the father of Gedaliah, who would become governor of Jerusalem after its destruction in 586 BC and would also befriend Jeremiah.

Here we have an example of how the prophet’s integrity is rewarded, although it might always turn out like this. Whatever the consequences, Jeremiah had to speak out what he believed was the Lord’s message. Quite unknown to him, circumstances worked in his favour and preserved his life. 

This is an example of one’s life being in the hands of potter. Jeremiah would die when his time had come and not before. Neither he nor anyone else could change that. Clearly, Yahweh had some more work for him to do.

For us it is the same. In our lives, too, God’s Providence can work in strange ways and use very unexpected instruments.

Let us today count our blessings and recall how many times God’s love has been experienced through surprising and unexpected interventions.

Matthew 14:1-12

Our reading is about the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod. When Herod the Great died his kingdom was divided among four of his sons. One of them, the Herod of today’s Gospel and also known as Herod Antipas is called a “tetrarch”, meaning that he was the ruler of a fourth part or a quarter of a territory.

Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to 39 AD, that is, all during the life of Jesus and beyond. He is the one who wanted to see Jesus and whom Jesus called “that fox”. He is the one to whom Pilate sent Jesus during his trial. His rather painful and loathsome death is described in the Acts. Although only a tetrarch, Matthew calls him ‘king’ because that was his popular title among the Galileans and also in Rome.

It seems that, by all accounts, Herod was a nasty man and, as revealed by today’s story, a weak and highly superstitious one. It is striking how many powerful people are made insecure by superstition e.g. businessmen worried by the feng shui (lucky orientation) of their company buildings, anxious to have ‘lucky’ numbers on their cars, and the like.

Herod was hearing extraordinary things about Jesus and he came to the conclusion that Jesus was a re-incarnation of John the Baptist whom he had executed for reasons he knew very well to be totally wrong. Now here was John’s spirit come back to taunt him for he had killed God’s servant.

This leads to a re-telling by Matthew of the events which led to John’s death.

John, who was no respecter of persons, had openly criticised Herod for taking his half-brother Philip’s wife, Herodias, as his own partner. This was in clear contravention of the Mosaic Law. Herod’s fault was not so much in marrying a close relative but for taking her as his wife when Philip was still living and, at the same time, putting away the wife he already had.

It was already an extraordinarily incestuous family. Herodias was a granddaughter of Herod the Great and therefore a niece of Herod Antipas. First, she married another uncle, Herod Philip, who lived in Rome. He was a half-brother, from a different mother, of Herod Antipas. It was on a visit to Rome that Herod Antipas persuaded Herodias to leave her husband for him. This, of course, was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law: “You shall not have intercourse with your brother’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother” (Leviticus 18:16).

Herod, doubtless under pressure from Herodias, had wanted to rid himself of the embarrassment John was causing him but was afraid to do anything because, in the eyes of the people, John was a prophet and spoke in the name of God.

Herodias got her chance on the occasion of Herod’s birthday. Knowing her new husband’s weakness, she got her daughter to dance in his presence. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the daughter was known as Salome. She later married her granduncle, another Philip and a son of Herod the Great who ruled over the northern territories. He is mentioned by Luke.

Whether the dance was as lascivious as Cecil B. de Mille and others like to suggest, we do not know but Herod was greatly taken by the performance. In the presence of his courtiers and very likely having drunk a little too much he promised the girl he would give her anything she wanted, even half his kingdom. Under the prompting of her mother, she asked for the head of John the Baptist delivered on a dish. Herod was clearly appalled and also afraid but he had made his oath in the presence of a large number of people. He could not go back. John was decapitated and the head delivered as requested. His disciples came and buried the body and then went to tell Jesus.

There are echoes in this story of Jesus’ own death. He also died because of the moral weakness of Pilate who gave in to the threats of the Jewish leaders for the sake of his own career. Jesus’ death too was the result of blind hatred. And when he died his disciples arranged to have him buried.

Undoubtedly John was a martyr. He died as a witness to truth and justice in the service of God.

Herod, on the other hand, put expediency and his own convenience before truth and justice. He was in an immoral relationship with another woman and he gave in to what he felt would be the criticism and perhaps the derision of others. He had indeed made an oath but it was one that, in the circumstances, he was obliged not to observe.

With whom do I identify with more? John the Baptist, the fearless champion of truth and justice? Or Herod, the vacillator, the one who compromised truth and justice because of pressure of opinion and his own personal interests? I am sure all of us can think of times when we compromised with what we knew was the good thing, the right thing to do and took the line of less resistance.

John is an example to us of integrity. And, like him, we have each one of us been called in our own way to be prophets, to be spokespersons for God’s way. It may not always be easy.

Week 18 | Monday

Jer 28:1-17

We read today of the dispute with the false prophet, Hananiah. It is nice, of course, to hear encouraging words but not if they are false and misleading and that is what we see in today’s reading.

Internal evidence seems to indicate that chapters 27-28 were a distinct unit from the rest of the text. They may have formed a special collection for those in exile.

The setting is the beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah over Judah and the year is 593 BC. Zedekiah had been installed by the Babylonians as a puppet king; he would not last long.

The prophet Hananiah addresses Jeremiah, also a prophet, in the Temple. The name ‘Hananiah’ means “The Lord is gracious”. It was a fitting name for a prophet who brought soothing, but misleading, promises of the return of the exiles and the Temple vessels.

Speaking with the same words of authority that Jeremiah uses (”The Lord, the God of Israel, says this…”), he predicts that in two years’ time the yoke of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon over Judah will be broken. Everything that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away, especially the vessels from the Temple, will be brought back. Jeconiah, the exiled son of King Jehoiakim, and all the exiles will also return. Jehoiakim had been brought off to Babylon in 597 BC. Saying that all this would take place within two years directly contradicted what Jeremiah had predicted earlier (25:11-12), namely, that the Babylonian occupation would last 70 years.

Jeremiah then makes a response to Hananiah’s prophecy. In a strongly sarcastic tone he says it would be wonderful if the words of Hananiah were indeed true and that the exiles and the Temple vessels could return. Then he gives a warning. In the past, “from remote times”, prophets normally forecast war, famine and plague. Very often their prophecies came true because these things were likely to happen anyway. They were the results of the people’s sinfulness and idolatry.

But “the prophet who prophesies peace can only be recognised as one truly sent by the Lord when his word comes true”. In other words, Hananiah’s genuineness as a prophet will only be proved if his prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is fully realised and peace returns to Judah and Jerusalem. Which, of course, did not happen.

As if to prove his point by a symbolical gesture, Hananiah then removes a wooden yoke from the shoulder of Jeremiah and smashes it. This, he predicts, is how the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar will be broken within two years. By so acting, Hananiah was perhaps symbolically trying to break the power of Jeremiah’s earlier prophecies, which contradicted his own.

At that point, Jeremiah went off but Yahweh soon had a message for him. Hananiah is to be told: “By breaking a wooden yoke, you only produce an iron yoke!” Now, an iron yoke will be placed on the shoulders off all the peoples Nebuchadnezzar has conquered and they will be reduced to servitude, along with their animals. The yoke of the King of Babylon will not be broken until the Lord sees fit to do so. It will, of course, eventually be broken but the pie-in-the-sky promises of Hananiah will be proved illusory.

Jeremiah then confronts Hananiah. He is no true prophet; he has not been sent by God. Thanks to him the people have been given a false sense of security. Hananiah will be removed and he will be sent to his death within the year. And this indeed happened. Making false predictions was tantamount to rebellion and was punishable by death. He who had predicted restoration within two years himself died within two months.

The fulfilment of this short-term prophecy by Jeremiah gives credibility to his other more important prophecies. It was, in a way, an indication of who was the true and who was the false prophet and which of their predictions about the future should be believed.

Perhaps Hananiah meant well and he may even have believed what he told the people. On the other hand, he may have been simply seeking popularity and his own advantage. His words were in fact little more than propaganda with little basis in reality.

Jeremiah had earned a great deal of unpopularity in predicting suffering and defeat for his people and in telling them in the plainest words that their difficulties were entirely due to their own failure to follow God’s way. Very often the truth hurts but we need to hear it.

There are times and places for encouragement (the apocalyptic literature is full of it) but there are also times when people need to be brought face to face with reality (as when Winston Churchill said that all he could promise the British people during the early days of the Second World War were blood, sweat and tears).

Gospel 1: Matthew 14:13-21

(see below for alternative Gospel)

The announcement of John the Baptist’s death is followed immediately in Matthew by the feeding of the 5,000 in the desert.

Matthew says that Jesus, on hearing of his cousin’s tragic death, withdrew by boat to a desert place by himself. He clearly wanted time to reflect. He knew that, if things continued as they were, he too could be facing trouble.

However, the crowds knew where he had gone and followed along the shore on foot. “When he disembarked and saw the vast throng, his heart was moved with compassion, and he cured their sick.” His own troubles were set aside as he saw the greater need of the people. We have here, of course, an image of our God, filled with compassion for all of us and anxious to bring us healing and wholeness.

As evening comes down, the disciples suggest that the people be sent to neighbouring villages for food. It is the first mention of the disciples’ presence. In Mark’s version of this story, the disciples had accompanied Jesus in the boat at his invitation, so that they could all have a period of quiet away from the crowds. Jesus’ response is simple and to the point: “You give them food to eat.” They reply: “We have only five loaves of bread and two fish. What good is that?”

This, of course, is a sign of the future. It will be the responsibility of Jesus’ followers to give the people the nourishment they need for their lives. At times, their resources will seem very inadequate but time will show that wonders can be done with very little. Just look at what Mother Teresa achieved with nothing of her own.

The people are then ordered to sit down on the grass. Jesus takes the loaves and fish, looks up to heaven in the direction of his Father, blesses the food, breaks it, gives it to the disciples who in turn distribute it among the people. The whole action clearly prefigures the Eucharist and leads up to it.

It is not explained how it all happened but five thousand men not counting women and children had their fill. Matthew alone notes the presence of women and children. As Jews did not permit women and children to eat together with men in public, they would have been in a place by themselves.

And what was left over filled 12 baskets – a perfect number symbolising abundance and also the number of the apostles.

There are two clear lessons. God takes care of his people. We can read the feeding in two ways. On the one hand, we can simply take it as a miraculous event, pointing to the divine origins of Jesus. On the other hand, there is another possibility with its own meaning. Once the disciples began to share the little food they had with those around, it triggered a similar movement among the crowd, many of whom had actually brought some food with them. When everyone shared, everyone had enough. A picture of the kind of society the Church should stand for.

Some people might say that this is explaining away the miracle but it also makes an important point. The second lesson is that it was the disciples and not Jesus who distributed the bread and fish. And so it must be in our own time. If the followers of Jesus do not share with others what they have received from him, the work of Jesus and the spreading of the Gospel will not happen.

Lastly, there are clear Eucharistic elements in the story. Especially the ritualistic way in which Jesus prayed, blessed, broke and distributed the bread. The breaking of the bread (a name for the Mass) is very important because it indicates sharing and not just eating. The Eucharist is the celebration of a sharing community. If sharing of what we have in real life is not taking place, then the Eucharist becomes a ritualistic sham, a whited sepulchre full of dead people’s bones.

Alternative Gospel: Matthew 14:22-36

(Read during Year A of the Sunday cycle, when the above Gospel is read on the previous Sunday, namely, yesterday).

As soon as the five thousand had been filled with the food that Jesus gave them, Jesus packs his disciples off in the boat to the other side of the lake. He sends the crowds away and then retreats to the mountain to pray all by himself.

We know from John’s account that the people wanted to make him a king. If Jesus wanted to take control of the crowd this was the moment; they were ready to follow enthusiastically. Jesus was indeed their king but not the kind they were expecting. He would draw the crowds to him in a very different way, hanging in shame on a cross.

It looks too as if he did not want his disciples to get any wrong ideas either. They must have been elated at their role in the extraordinary event of feeding more than 5,000 people. So, perhaps with a lot of grumbling, they are sent off even before the excited crowds have dispersed.

As they make their way across the lake in this dark mood, things get even worse. They run into a big storm and their boat is being tossed about like a cork. Then, out of the darkness, between 3 and 6 in the morning hours, they see Jesus approaching them across the water. Far from being delighted, they are terrified out of their wits. Superstitious men that they are, they think it is a ghost. Ghosts were very much a part of their world.

Words of encouragement come across the water: “Courage! It is I [Greek, ego eimi] = I AM]. Do not be afraid.” Jesus gives himself the very name of Yahweh; this is all the reassurance they need. Their God is with them.

Only in Matthew’s account of this story do we have Peter’s reaction. “Lord, if it really is you, tell me to come to you across the water.”

“Come!” replies Jesus.

Peter gets out of the boat and goes towards Jesus. It is an act of love and faith/trust. But not quite enough. The power of the wind and waves gets stronger than his desire to be with Jesus. He begins to sink. “Lord, save me!” Jesus lifts him up, “How little faith/trust you have!”

As soon as Jesus and Peter get into the boat, there is a complete calm.

The rest of the disciples are overwhelmed: “Truly, you are the Son of God.”

We have here behind this story an image of the early Church, of which the boat and the disciples are a symbol. The surrounding water is the world and the wind and waves, the forces which threaten the tiny community. Jesus seems to be far away but he is not and he appears in the midst of the storm. Once he steps inside the boat, there is calm, not only because the surrounding storm has stopped but also because of the peace which the awareness of Jesus’ presence gives.

There is an added element in this story in that Peter, the leader of the community, comes hand in hand into the boat with Jesus. In time, the authority of Jesus will be passed over to him.

There is also, of course, in the calming of the storm an indication of Jesus’ real identity, expressed in the awe-filled words of the disciples, “Truly, you are the Son of God”, echoing Jesus’ own statement of “I AM”.

There is a brief epilogue at the end of our passage. The boat reaches the area of Gennesaret. The name refers either to the narrow plain, about four miles long and less than two miles wide on the north-west shore of the Sea of Galilee, north of Magdala, or to a town in the plain. Significantly for the work that Jesus was about to do, the plain was considered a garden land, fertile and well watered.

As soon as Jesus reaches the shore the crowds again gather in huge numbers especially to have their sick cured. So great was their faith that they asked only to touch the fringe of his garment. All those who did so (in faith) were healed.

Jesus had sent away the crowds earlier probably because of the late hour but also perhaps because of the mood of the crowd which was taking on political overtones not wanted by Jesus. But now they are back to seek from him what he came to give them: healing and wholeness.

Week 18 | Tuesday

Jer 30:1-2, 12-15, 18-22

The reading is in three parts: a brief introduction (vv. 1-2); the sufferings of Judah are deserved (12-15); better times are on the way (18-22).

After so many dire predictions of terrible things going to happen, a note of hope creeps into Jeremiah’s words with the promise of recovery (albeit not too soon) of the kingdoms.

Today’s reading comes from the beginning of what is often known as Jeremiah’s “Book of Consolation”. It speaks of the ultimate restoration of both Israel (the Northern Kingdom, centred on Samaria) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom, centred on Jerusalem). The passage seems to date from the year 587 BC, just one year before Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and its people carried off into exile to Babylon.

The Jerusalem Bible says the greater part of the Book (30:1-31:22) was written between the reform of 622 BC and the death of King Josiah in 609 BC. It is written almost entirely in poetry. The decline of Assyria had allowed King Josiah to undertake the re-conquest of Samaria and Galilee. This gave rise to the hope that the exiles of 721 BC might return to a restored kingdom of David. The section is the longest sustained passage in Jeremiah concerned with the future hope of the people of God.

Yahweh still loves the Israel of the Northern Kingdom; he will bring the exiles back to their homes; religious unity will be restored with Zion as its centre. Later this promise of return was extended to Judah, the Southern Kingdom, conquered and exiled in its turn. Subsequent oracles associate Judah with Israel, thus giving the ‘Book of Consolation’ its final, messianic scope: Israel and Judah will unite to serve ‘Yahweh their God and David their king’. This gathering of scattered Israel becomes a major theme of the exilic and post-exilic prophets. It is a dream which inspires Jews to this day.

The readings for today, tomorrow and Thursday, all taken from chapters 30 and 31, express this hope for a better future.

The passage begins by the prophet being told by God to write down the message so that future generations may know the predictions of better times to come.

The opening words of the Lord, in the reading, however, begin on a negative note. Jeremiah once again reminds the people of Judah that their many sufferings were the consequences of their own actions. “Your wound is incurable, your injustice past healing… no medicine to make you well again…” “All your lovers have forgotten you”, namely, those nations, especially Egypt, on which Judah depended for support against the Babylonians.

However, they must realise that all of this suffering was deserved. “Why bother to complain about your wound?… So great is your guilt, so many your sins, that I have done all this to you.” Assyria and Babylon were merely instruments to teach Judah better ways.

“Because of your guilt,

your numerous sins,

I have done this to you.”

But new times are coming. The tents and dwellings of Jacob, referring to Judah’s cities and palaces, will be restored. The city of Jerusalem will be rebuilt on its ruins. The Hebrew word for ‘ruins’, tel(l) refers to a mound of ruins resulting from the accumulation of debris of years or centuries on which successive towns were built. (Archaeologists in this part of the world often find a town built on several layers of previous structures.)

Instead of the cries of suffering now heard, “there will come thanksgiving and shouts of joy, the laughter of happy people”. The population will increase and things will be as they were in the good days of the past.

They will be ruled by one of their own and not by a governor appointed by the conquering power, Assyria or Babylon. And this ruler, chosen from among God’s own people, will have free access to the Lord’s presence. The Pentateuch tells us that unauthorised approaches into God’s presence were punishable by death. This ruler will be one fully acknowledged by Yahweh. While not immediately intended here, Jesus Christ will be the one who will ultimately fulfil this promise in a very special way.

And the passage ends with the great covenant statement: “You shall be my people and I will be your God.” That was always true but both the people of Israel and of Judah had violated their side of the pact by their immorality and idolatry.

The days of restoration will not only mean a putting back of the old structures but a renewing of the close bond between God and his people.

The passage is full of hope, the hope that knows that, no matter how bad things get, truth, goodness and justice will prevail in the long run. Our own lives must always be based on such a hope.

But, of course, as Jeremiah implies, the realisation of our hopes also depends on our active cooperation with doing what God wants. Many of our problems are the results of our failure to live in harmony with the Gospel vision of life.

Gospel 1: Matthew 14:22-36

(this is the same as the alternative Gospel for yesterday)

As soon as the people had been filled with the food that Jesus gave them, Jesus packs his disciples off in the boat to the other side of the lake. He sends the crowds away and then retreats to the mountain to pray all by himself.

We know from John’s account that the people wanted to make him a king. If Jesus wanted to take control of the crowd this was the moment; they were ready to follow enthusiastically. Jesus was indeed their king but not the kind they were expecting. He would draw the crowds to him in a very different way, hanging in shame on a cross.

It looks too as if he did not want his disciples to get any wrong ideas either. They must have been elated at their role in the extraordinary event of feeding more than 5,000 people. So, perhaps with a lot of grumbling, they are sent off even before the excited crowds have dispersed.

As they make their way across the lake in this dark mood, things get even worse. They run into a big storm and their boat is being tossed about like a cork. Then, out of the darkness, between 3 and 6 in the morning hours, they see Jesus approaching them across the water. Far from being delighted, they are terrified out of their wits. Superstitious men that they are, they think it is a ghost. Ghosts were very much a part of their world.

Words of encouragement come across the water: “Courage! It is I [Greek, ego eimi] = I AM]. Do not be afraid.” Jesus gives himself the very name of Yahweh; this is all the reassurance they need. Their God is with them.

Only in Matthew’s account of this story do we have Peter’s reaction. “Lord, if it really is you, tell me to come to you across the water.”

“Come!”

Peter gets out of the boat and goes towards Jesus. It is an act of love and faith/trust. But not quite enough. The power of the wind and waves gets stronger than his desire to be with Jesus. He begins to sink. “Lord, save me!” Jesus lifts him up, “How little faith/trust you have!”

As soon as Jesus and Peter get into the boat, there is a complete calm.

The rest of the disciples are overwhelmed: “Truly, you are the Son of God.”

We have here behind this story an image of the early Church, of which the boat and the disciples are a symbol. The surrounding water is the world and the wind and waves, the forces which threaten the tiny community. Jesus seems to be far away but he is not and he appears in the midst of the storm. Once he steps inside the boat, there is calm, not only because the surrounding storm has stopped but also because of the peace which the awareness of Jesus’ presence gives.

There is an added element in this story in that Peter, the leader of the community, comes hand in hand into the boat with Jesus. In time, the authority of Jesus will be passed over to him.

There is also, of course, in the calming of the storm an indication of Jesus’ real identity, expressed in the awe-filled words of the disciples, “Truly, you are the Son of God”, echoing Jesus’ own statement of “I AM”.

There is a brief epilogue at the end of our passage. The boat reaches the area of Gennesaret. The name refers either to the narrow plain, about four miles long and less than two miles wide on the north-west shore of the Sea of Galilee, north of Magdala, or to a town in the plain. Significantly for the work that Jesus was about to do, the plain was considered a garden land, fertile and well watered.

As soon as Jesus reaches the shore the crowds again gather in huge numbers especially to have their sick cured. So great was their faith that they asked only to touch the fringe of his garment. All those who did so (in faith) were healed.

Jesus had sent away the crowds earlier probably because of the late hour but also perhaps because of the mood of the crowd which was taking on political overtones not wanted by Jesus.

But now they are back to seek from him what he came to give them: healing and wholeness.

Gospel 2: Matthew 15:1-2,10-14

(To be used if Gospel 1 was read yesterday.)

We find Jesus and his disciples in dispute with the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes were interpreters of the Law and so normally took the stricter meaning. The Pharisees also prided themselves on their exact interpretation of every detail of the Law.

They approach Jesus and ask him why his disciples do not observe the traditions of the elders and do not wash their hands before they ate. One can presume that the washing of hands before eating had originally been a hygienic practice as it is for us. Someone coming in from a day working on a farm or in a workshop would need to clean their hands before eating. But, perhaps to make sure that what was done through common sense should always be done, it had been raised to the level of a religious ritual. And the washing now was not just to remove dirt from the hands but to purify them in case they had come in contact with anything that was ‘unclean’. That could even mean having shaken hands with a Gentile or some other ‘unclean’ person or to have touched a kind of food that was not allowed to be eaten.

In today’s reading we omit the reply that Jesus gives where he accuses his questioners of themselves breaking God’s law by their observance of what they call ‘tradition’. Instead, we go on to a passage where Jesus speaks to the crowds about what really makes for cleanliness. A person, he said, is made unclean not by what goes into their mouths but by what comes out of it. This is an anticipation of the Christian position, clarified later in the Acts of the Apostles, where no food is to be seen as ritually unclean (although, of course, it may be unclean for other reasons). Real un-cleanliness comes from inside, from the heart and mind.

Later, the disciples approach Jesus and tell him that the Pharisees are highly offended by what Jesus has said. He gives them an enigmatic answer: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” In other words, the validity of any person’s opinion stems from its being in harmony with God’s thoughts. It is a choice between the ideas of the Pharisees and the words of Jesus. Which one represents the Word of God? Whose thoughts have been planted by God?

Jesus goes on to say that the Pharisees are blind guides and those they lead are blind. They do not know where they are going and they will both fall into the pit. This blindness of the Pharisees is referred to more than once in the Gospel. Their blindness is not due to ignorance or lack of intelligence but to their refusal to be open-minded and consider other alternatives to the truth they claim.

We sometimes meet Christians who behave like this too. They go around giving the impression that they and only they have the correct interpretation of the Christian faith. They are often rigid and intolerant and refuse to consider alternative points of view. It gives them a kind of security, a dogmatic security (“We have the Truth”) but it is a false security and it very often lacks the most important virtue of all, Christian charity and love. “Where there is love, there is God.” Where love is absent…

Week 18 | Wednesday

Jer 31:1-7

Another upbeat reading from the prophet with a (not really deserved) reputation for doom and gloom. Jeremiah today continues his message of hope for the restoration of the two kingdoms, north and south, once again to be formed as one nation under God.

We are now at the beginning of chapter 31. Continuing the theme of restoration begun in the previous chapter, Jeremiah records the words of the Lord to

(1) all the people of God, v.1 (prose);

(2) the restored northern kingdom of Israel, vv.2-22 (poetry);

(3) the restored southern kingdom of Judah, v..23-26 (prose); and

(4) Israel and Judah together, vv.27-40 (prose prologue, vv.27-30; poetic body, vv.31-37; prose epilogue, vv.38-40 - each section beginning with the words, ‘The days are coming…’).

Today’s reading just contains the first seven verses of the chapter which speaks of the good news of the return from exile of Israel, the Northern Kingdom.

It begins with the repetition of the covenant promise: “I will be the God of all the tribes of Israel, and they shall be my people.” God had never been unfaithful to this covenant but the people had, again and again.

There is now pardon in the desert for those “who have survived the sword”. They are the just remnant which will return home from years of captivity and exile in the alien land of Babylon.

The desert or wilderness is sometimes seen by the prophets (e.g. Hosea) as a place of conversion. Israel’s original journey through the desert was seen as a time of childlike fidelity to God. Here, there is now seen a second Exodus, this time from the Arabian Desert, which will bring Israel back once again from exile and slavery into its own land.

“Israel is marching to his rest.” Israel originally was Jacob’s other name but here it refers to the Northern Kingdom. It is also called by Jeremiah Samaria, Ephraim, Jacob and Rachel.

The Lord now expresses his affection for his people. “I have loved you with an everlasting love, so I am constant in my affection for you.” This gentle and tender language is in strong contrast to some of the severe chastisements we have seen in previous readings from the prophets, including Jeremiah himself. But this love was there even in their times of suffering when they felt they were abandoned. Later, we read in the Book of Revelation, “God chastises those whom he loves” (Rev 3:19).

Now God promises to restore Israel, the Northern Kingdom, as it was. There will be music with festive tambourines and dancing, signs of religious joy. Tambourines were played especially after military victories and this contrasts strongly with their sad plight in Babylon. “Beside the streams of Babylon we sat and wept at the memory of Zion, leaving our harps hanging on poplars there… How could we sing one of Yahweh’s hymns in a pagan country?” (Ps 137:1-2,4)

They will plant vineyards once more in Samaria. It had been conquered in 722-721 BC but one day would be resettled by God’s people. “Those who plant them shall enjoy the fruits.” Since the law laid down that the fruit of a tree could not be eaten until the fifth year after planting it, a return to long-term peaceful residence is envisioned, a situation of political and social stability.

On the mountains of Ephraim the watchmen will call out, “Let us go up to Zion”, that is, to the Temple in Jerusalem. It was the role of watchmen to be stationed on high points to observe the phases of the moon which would decide the celebration of the big festivals. (Today, Muslims also have watchmen to observe the rising of the new moon indicating the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.)

“Rise up! Let us go to Zion, to the Lord, our God.” In the days of King Jeroboam I, the people of Ephraim, that is, the northern kingdom, were required to worship at shrines within the kingdom but now the prophet sees them going, as they used to do, to the Temple in Jerusalem which was in the southern kingdom - one sanctuary for a united people.

“Go up” was a technical phrase to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The city was built on a hill. We see the phrase used in the New Testament also.

The reading ends with a series of acclamations of joy and triumph. Israel is the greatest of the nations, not because of its size or power but because of its special relationship with God. The people will cry: “The Lord has saved his people, the remnant of Israel!” The Hebrew word for ‘save’ is the basis for the “Hosanna”, which the people of Jerusalem cried out to welcome Jesus on Palm Sunday (see Mt 21:9).

Once again we hear the same words of hope by a people who had every reason not to hope. But their hope was justified as ours will be too.

And let us pray for the restoration of modern Israel in a way that guarantees justice and peace for its people and all their neighbours.

Matthew 15:21-28

Jesus is seen on one of his few visits outside Jewish territory. The cities of Tyre and Sidon are on the Mediterranean coast in what is today Lebanon.

While he is there he is approached by a Canaanite (that is, a non-Jewish) woman whose child is “troubled by a demon”. Whether it was an actual possession or some natural physical or mental ailment does not really matter. Already the woman’s faith and trust in Jesus is indicated by the way she addresses him, “Lord, Son of David!” coupled with her plea for his compassion.

At first, Jesus ignores her completely. The disciples intervene and ask Jesus to give her what she wants because she is making such a nuisance of herself. Jesus replies that his mission is only to the “house of Israel”, to which this woman clearly does not belong.

In the meantime the woman continues her pleading, “Help me, Lord!” She is following, in fact, advice that the Gospel gives – keep on asking. Jesus replies in words that sound very harsh, if not racist: “It is not right to take the children’s food and give it to the dogs.”

‘Dogs’, together with ‘swine’, was a common colloquial expression among Jews for Gentiles (cf. Matt 7:6: “Do not give what is holy to dogs or cast your pearls before swine.”) The dog was regarded as an unclean and promiscuous animal. Because it was such a common expression, it is probably not as harsh as it sounds to us and, if spoken with a measure of humour (implied by Jesus’ use of the diminutive, ‘doggies’), would not have given offence at all. As they say, everything is in the tone of voice. (Not unlike when my Chinese friends call me a gwai-lo [‘devil fellow’] – a common term for non-Chinese.) Jesus was not a racist; that is clear from other situations where he dealt with non-Jews and with other commonly despised groups.

For her part, the woman certainly is not in the least fazed. She comes right back: “Even the dogs eat the leavings that fall from their masters’ tables.” That was enough for Jesus. She had proved her genuineness. “Woman, you have great faith. Your wish will come to pass.” Her daughter was cured on the spot.

It is a hint of what is to come. Membership of God’s people will be measured not by birth or circumcision but by a living faith in Jesus as Lord.

A story like this is an occasion for us to look at our own attitudes to people of other races, ethnic groups and nationalities not to mention the socially disadvantaged or physically or mentally disabled – in other words, any people who are ‘different’. How inclusive are we in word and action? And does our parish community go out of its way to provide a welcome for the ‘outsider’? These are very real questions in societies which are becoming more and more inter-cultural.

Week 18 | Thursday

Jer 31:31-34

Today we have our final reading from Jeremiah, although there are still more than 20 chapters of the book left. This passage is regarded as the high point of the prophet’s words with its promise of a new covenant. And we need to remember that this was written 600 years before the coming of Christ and the New Testament or Covenant he brought.

The Jerusalem Bible describes the significance of the passage:

In verses 31-34 Jeremiah reaches its highest peak of spirituality. The old covenant has been violated, and the attempted reform under Josiah has been short-lived: it is evident now that God has other plans. A disaster will ensue, leaving only a ‘remnant’ of the nation, and then an everlasting covenant will be made, a covenant as in the days of Noah. The former perspectives remain: man’s obedience to the Law, and the divine presence bestowing peace and material prosperity, this ideal being summed up in the formula: ‘I will be your God and you shall be my people’. But the covenant is ‘new’ in three respects:

1, God’s spontaneous forgiveness of sin;

2, individual responsibility and retribution;

3, interiorisation of religion.

The Law is no longer to be a code regulating external activity but an inspiration working on the heart of man, under the influence of the spirit of God, who gives man a new heart, capable of ‘knowing’ God. This new and eternal covenant, proclaimed again by Ezekiel, by the closing chapters of Isaiah, and operative in Ps 51, will be inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ - and the apostles will proclaim its fulfilment.

This passage is the longest sequence of Old Testament verses to be quoted in its entirety in the New Testament. It is found in the Letter to the Hebrews (8:8-12) and quoted again in part in Hebrews 10:16-17. This is the only passage (in v.31) in the whole of the Old Testament where the term ‘new covenant’ (or ‘testament’) appears. That ‘new covenant’ we now recognise in the new relationship with God established by Jesus Christ through his Paschal Mystery.

Jeremiah begins by proclaiming that “the days are coming”, a phrase that often refers to the Messianic era and, for us, there is a strong Messianic tone to the passage.

In those “days” God will make a “new covenant” with the Houses of Israel (in the north) and Judah (in the south), which will once again be united as one kingdom. “New covenant” is a term which is picked up in the New Testament more than once by Paul in his letters and in the Letter to the Hebrews. We know now that, while the old covenant was solemnised by the pouring of the blood of sacrificial animals, the new covenant will be solemnised by the blood of Christ poured out on the cross. The new covenant will differ in many significant ways from what will henceforth be called the “old” or “first” covenant made at Sinai.

In those days Jeremiah says, in a lovely phrase, God “took them by the hand”, echoing the beautiful words of Hosea: “It was I… who took them in my arms; I drew them with human cords, with bands of love. I fostered them like one who raises an infant to his cheeks” (Hos 11:3-4). Yahweh took his people to liberate them from the slavery of Egypt but, as we have seen many times in these readings, it was they and not God who broke that covenant and, as a result, they experienced many hardships.

They would have to learn by painful experience that the Lord and only the Lord was their true master. (The word ‘master’ here can also be translated ‘husband’.)

Then comes a description of this ‘new’ covenant to be made with the house of Israel, now seeing both kingdoms as one.

It will not be simply a legal code, like that of Moses, to be observed by external acts. “Deep within them I will plant my law, writing it on their hearts.” So that it effectively governs their lives, in contrast to the ineffectiveness of merely presenting it in writing, though inscribed on durable stone.

“I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” The terms of the old covenant remain but it is superseded by the new which will fulfil and go far beyond what was understood by the old. It will be a law totally assimilated into their very being so that its observance will flow naturally in all their words and actions. The old covenant is not abrogated; rather it becomes fully internalised.

Jesus will spell this out, especially in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s gospel, when he says that he comes not to abolish but to fulfil the Law.

And only then will the covenant statement be really fulfilled: “I shall be their God and they shall be my people.”

Finally, there will then “be no further need for neighbour to teach neighbour”. In other words, there will no longer be those who are ignorant of God and his will for their lives. True knowledge of the Lord will be shared by all - young and old, the peasant and the powerful.

Because, “they will all, from the least to the greatest, know me”. Using the word ‘know’ in its fullest sense, it indicates a deep, intimate and direct knowing and not simply an intellectual ‘knowing about’.

The consequence of this deep interpersonal relationship is that “I will forgive their sin”. The very mutuality of the relationship will result in perfect reconciliation and forgiveness and the covenant promise will be fully realised: “I will be their God and they my people.”

There will ensue that unity between God and his people of which Jesus will speak at the Last Supper. “I in them and they in me.”

It is for us to live the terms of this new covenant to the full. It is easy for Christians to fall back on an external living of their faith, seeing its observance in the keeping of external rules and regulations. We need to learn how to ‘know’ God in the deepest recesses of our hearts, to find him in every experience, to be aware of his unconditional love and to communicate that love to all those around us.

Matthew 16:13-23

We now reach a high point in Matthew’s narrative. More than any of the other gospels, his is a Gospel of the Church. (Mark emphasises discipleship; Luke the communication of God’s love and compassion; John unity with God through Jesus.)

We find Jesus and his disciples in the district of Caesarea Philippi. This is not the fine city of Caesarea built by Herod the Great on the shore of the Mediterranean. It was a town, rebuilt by Herod’s son Philip, who called it after the emperor Tiberius Caesar and himself. It lay just to the north of the Sea of Galilee and near the slopes of Mount Hermon. It had originally been called Paneas, after the Greek god Pan and is known today as Banias.

The area was predominantly pagan, dominated by Rome. In a sense, therefore, it was both an unexpected yet fitting place for Jesus’ identity to be proclaimed. He was, after all, not just for his own people but for the whole world.

Jesus begins by asking his disciples who people think he really is. They respond with some of the speculations that were going round: he was John the Baptist resurrected from the dead (Herod’s view, for instance) or Elijah (whose return was expected to herald the imminent coming of the Messiah) or Jeremiah or some other of the great prophets.

The Jews at this time expected a revival of the prophetic spirit which had been extinct since Malachi. John was regarded by many of the people as a prophet, although he denied that he was the expected prophet, often thought to be Elijah returned. The early Christians saw Jesus as a prophet but with the appearance of prophecy as a charism in their communities the term was dropped in his case.

Interestingly, the people did not seem to think that Jesus himself was on a par with these ‘greats’ of their history. We do tend to undervalue the leaders of our own time when compared with those of the past.

“And you,” Jesus goes on, “who do you say I am?” It was a moment of truth, a very special moment in his disciples’ relationship with their Master. Simon speaks up: “You are the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is a huge step forward for Peter and his companions. As we shall see, it is not yet a total recognition of his identity or mission. But Jesus is no mere rabbi, no mere prophet, but the long-awaited Messiah and Saviour King who would deliver Israel. It is an exciting moment in their relationship with him. And it is only in Matthew that Peter calls him “Son of God”.

The focus now shifts immediately to Simon. He is praised for his insight but Jesus makes clear that it comes from divine inspiration and is not a mere deduction. A ‘mystery’, in the Scripture sense, is being uncovered.

And now comes the great promise. Simon from now on is to be called ‘Peter’, a play on the word for ‘rock’ (kepha in Aramaic, petra/petros in Greek), for he will become the rock on which the “church” will be built, a rock which will stand firm against all attacks on it. A promise which must have sounded very daring at the time it was written but which 2,000 years have again and again vindicated. ‘Peter’ in either its Aramaic or Hebrew was not a previously known personal name.

The term ‘church’ only appears twice in Matthew and not at all in the other three gospels. The Hebrew word qahal which in Greek is rendered as ekklesia (’, means ‘an assembly called together’. It was used often in the Old Testament to indicate the community of the Chosen People.

“By using this term ekklesia side by side with ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, Jesus shows that this eschatological community (community of the ‘end-times’) is to have its beginnings here on earth in the form of an organised society whose leader he now appoints.” (Jerusalem Bible, loc. cit.)

And Simon is given power and authority, the “keys of the Kingdom”, all that he will need to make the Kingdom a reality. His authority and that of the ‘church’ is the authority of Jesus himself. Whatever Peter and the church formally decide is immediately ratified by God; they are his appointed agents.

Lastly, they are strictly ordered not to tell anyone else that Jesus is the Messiah. The people are not ready to hear it; they have their own expectations which are very different from the Messiah that Jesus is going to be. The disciples themselves have a totally wrong idea as becomes immediately clear in what follows.

From the moment that they recognise Jesus as Messiah, he begins to prepare them for what is going to happen. “[The Son of Man] must go to Jerusalem to suffer greatly at the hands of the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and to be put to death, and raised up on the third day.” This is the first of three ominous predictions.

After the euphoria of knowing their Master was the Messiah, all their dreams and hopes are shattered by these terrible revelations. It is hard for us to imagine the impact these words must have had. Peter, who had just covered himself in glory and been appointed leader, almost patronisingly takes Jesus aside, “God forbid that any such thing ever happen to you!”

For him and the others this was an unthinkable scenario for the Messiah they were all waiting for. How much more shocked Peter must have been at Jesus’ reaction. “Get out of my sight, you Satan! You are trying to make me trip and fall. You are not judging by God’s standards but by man’s.” The man who was just now called a Rock is accused of being Satan’s advocate! Instead of being a rock of stability, he is seen as a stumbling block in the way of Jesus.

Peter is seen as doing the very work of the devil in trying to divert Jesus from the way he was called to go, the way in which God’s love would be revealed to us, the way in which we would be liberated for the life of the Kingdom.

It will take time before Peter and the others both understand and accept the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah. It will not happen until after the resurrection. Before that the Rock will be guilty of a shameful betrayal of the Man who put such trust in him.

We too can ask ourselves to what extent we accept Jesus the rejected, suffering, dying and rising Messiah.

Week 18 | Friday

Nahum 2:1,3;3:1-3,6-7

Today we have a single reading from the very short Book of Nahum (just three chapters). Nahum is one of the so-called ‘minor’ prophets, as opposed to ‘major’ prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.

Nahum made his prophecy just before the fall of the Assyrian capital of Niniveh in 612 BC. His joy over the city’s and the empire’s downfall is understandable when one considers the savage cruelty for which it was notorious over nearly three centuries. Rightly he calls it a “bloody city”.

Today’s reading speaks of the imminent collapse of Niniveh, overthrown by the new juggernaut – Babylon. It is a triumphant song of joy over the fall of a great city. (We remember how the Book of Jonah said it took three days to cross – mostly likely something of an exaggeration.)

The passage opens with the messenger coming across the mountains of Judah with a wonderful message of peace. Such good announcements of deliverance are common in Scripture: here it is deliverance from the threat of Assyria. Later there will be the deliverance from exile in Babylon and Paul in the Letter to the Romans will speak of our deliverance from sin through the “good news” of Jesus Christ (Rom 10:15) and quotes from this passage: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

The people are now urged to “fulfil your vows”, that is, the promises made to God during the times of distress for “nevermore shall you be invaded by the scoundrel (Belial)… He is completely destroyed.” This statement was fulfilled when Niniveh fell to the Babylonians in 612 BC. The Assyrian invasion in the days of King Manasseh was to be the last – but there were, unfortunately, other invasions to come.

The Lord was now restoring the vineyard, that is, uniting the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which had been ravaged and ruined by the enemy.

Niniveh, on the other hand, is a city “soaked in blood”. It is a city “full of lies, stuffed with booty, whose plunderings know no end”.

There is a graphic description of the Assyrian war machine which resulted in a “mass of wounded, countless corpses…” The wholesale killings of its conquered victims was well known. The Assyrians were notorious for their ruthlessness, brutality and terrible atrocities. Many of their victims were beheaded, impaled or burned.

There is a graphic run of short phrases giving a vivid picture of a mighty army at war, over-running its weaker enemies – the crack of the whip, rumbling wheels, galloping horses, racing chariots, charging cavalry, flaming swords, flashing spears bringing death and destruction – heaped corpses, endless bodies to fall over…

We are told that the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III boasted of erecting a pyramid of chopped-off heads in front of an enemy’s city. Other Assyrian kings stacked corpses like cordwood by the gates of defeated cities. The prophet’s descriptions are no exaggeration.

In verses which are omitted from our reading, Nahum describes Assyria as a doomed harlot:

For the many debaucheries of the harlot,
fair and charming, mistress of witchcraft,
who enslaved nations with her harlotries
and peoples by her witchcraft.
I am come against you,
and I will strip your skirt from you;
I will show your nakedness to the nations,
to the kingdoms your shame.

So now Niniveh, the proud and arrogant city, is to be humiliated, “pelted with filth”. Like a disgraced harlot, she will be shamed and made a show of. She will be punished like a prostitute receiving punishment for her adulteries. She is being punished less for her idolatry or her practice of ritual prostitution, for she was a pagan city anyway, but for the terrible cruelties to her victims. Now she is utterly destroyed and there is not a shred of pity for her fate. She has received her just deserts.

There must have been times during the Assyrian conquests that God’s people wondered if it would ever come to an end. But it did. The joy of that discovery pervades the reading. Evil can never last indefinitely. It has always within it the seeds of its own destruction.

Matthew 16:24-28

Jesus has already shocked his disciples by telling them in advance what is going to happen to him as Messiah. Now he goes further and tells them that they, too, will have to have a part in his experience.

They are to follow in his footsteps. Like him, they are to be ready to take up their cross, whatever it may be, and carry it behind him. For some, it will mean dying for Christ and the Kingdom. For others, it will mean living totally for Christ and the Kingdom. Notice, Jesus tells them to take up their own cross, not his. That cross will be different for each person; it takes the form of some difficult thing which it is clear we must accept and not run away from. It is not to be sought for; that would not be a healthy thing to do. It will come, unmarked and unchosen but clear.

The other way, to avoid all pain and seek only what brings pleasure and enjoyment, is to go down a cul-de-sac, a blind alley that leads nowhere. That is what we mean by trying ‘to save our life’. It is a sure way to lose it.

What is the use of “gaining the whole world”, becoming a multi-millionaire and being profoundly unhappy? Living for oneself only is to end up finding one’s self dying. Letting go of one’s life to live for others, to live for truth, love and justice is to live a full life, even if shortened by physical death. Many of the saints died long before their time but achieved in a few years what most of us cannot do in a long life. “Consummatus in breve, explevit tempora multa” is a scriptural phrase applied to some of the saints who died relatively young. It says that, although their life came to an early end, they had filled it with many good things.

Week 18 | Saturday

Habakkuk 1:12-2:4

Today we have one reading from the Prophet Habakkuk. The book dates from the years 605-597 BC, that is, between the great Babylonian victory at Carchemish and Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the southern kingdom of Judah which resulted in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to the threat of invasion, the city itself was a hotbed of political intrigue and widespread idolatry.

The first two chapters, from which our readings are taken, consist of a dialogue between God and the prophet and it may be the only place in the Bible where someone questions the way God manages events.

The New American Bible also comments:

The third chapter [from which we will not be reading] is a magnificent religious lyric, filled with reminiscences of Israel’s past and rich in literary borrowings from the poetry of ancient Canaan, though still expressing authentic Israelite faith. God appears in all his majestic splendour and executes vengeance on Judah’s enemies. The prophecy ends with a joyous profession of confidence in the Lord, the Saviour.

In today’s reading the prophet complains to God how he can tolerate the evil of those who cause so much suffering among his chosen people. The Jerusalem Bible summarises the prophet’s feelings thus:

If it is true that the Chaldaean triumph is ultimately due to Yahweh, this only moves the problem back to Yahweh himself who must give the answer. How is it that a just and holy God, the custodian of justice, can treat nations thus, and the chosen people in particular? Will he allow the wicked to engulf the virtuous?

While the New International Version comments:

Habakkuk cannot see the justice in Judah’s being punished by an even more wicked nation, and thinks that the Babylonians surely would not be allowed to conquer Judah completely.

The prophet acknowledges God as the Holy One who lives in eternity from ancient times, that is, from the time of the Exodus, the basis of the prophet’s hope for the future. “O Rock!” - a title recognising God’s immutable power. But it is this God who has made Babylon his agent for the judgement of the chosen people. Yahweh “made this people an instrument of justice, set it firm as a rock in order to punish”.

At the same time, the prophet sees a contradiction here. God’s eyes are too pure to look on wickedness and tyranny and yet he remains silent while evil men practise their treachery on those, who, though bad, are not as evil as their enemies. It is the classic question, asked again and again: Why does evil seem to flourish unchecked by a just and holy God? A question often asked on September 11, 2001 and after other similar murderous attacks.

God, says Habakkuk, treats people “like fishes in the sea”. The victims of Babylonia are as helpless as fish swimming into a net. In fact, Mesopotamian reliefs show conquering rulers symbolically catching their victims in fishnets. It seems that the Babylonians are allowed to do anything they like and, in the end, “triumphantly rejoice”. They then offer celebratory sacrifices over their “catch” and burn incense to the booty which rewards them with wealth and luxury.

Is there to be no end to all of this?, the prophet wants to know. “Shall [Babylon] keep brandishing his sword, to slay peoples without mercy?” So the prophet goes on a long watch on Jerusalem’s city walls to see if the Lord has any answer at all to his complaints. The prophet keeps watch like a sentry on behalf of his people. He looks out from his tower expecting a response to his challenge.

Yahweh’s response comes in the second part of today’s reading. “Then the Lord answered and said…” The prophet is told to write down the vision or revelation and put it on tablets so that it can easily be carried and read out by a messenger and delivered to all those meant to receive it. The word used here refers specifically to a prophet’s vision.

The message is “for its own time only” without any specification of when it will happen. It will be fulfilled at the appointed time. In fact it will deal with the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, 66 years after Habakkuk made his prophecy. “It presses on to fulfilment and will not disappoint.” It has an energy of its own, because it is the expression of Yahweh’s word moving to inevitable fulfilment.

The Advent liturgy uses this verse to express expectation of the Messiah.

The message, then, is to be patient. It may be slow in coming but “come it will, without fail”.

In conclusion a contrast is made between two kinds of people. On the one hand there is the one “who flags, whose soul is not at rights” but “the upright man will live by his faithfulness”. The king of Babylonia and his followers can be numbered among the first kind as well as those people of Judah who have lost confidence in God. The other remains utterly faithful to God no matter what happens and how long he has to wait.

‘Faithfulness’ to God, i.e. to his word and to his will, is characteristic of the ‘upright’ man, and assures him security and life here on earth. The wicked man, who does not have this ‘uprightness’ runs to ruin. The upright and the wicked in this context are respectively Judah and the Chaldaeans: the former will live, the others perish.

“The just man, because of his faith, shall live.” In light of God’s revelation about how (and when) he is working, his people are to wait patiently and live by faith - trusting in their sovereign God. The clause is quoted frequently in the New Testament to support the teaching that people are saved by grace through faith and should live by faith (Heb 10:38-39). It became the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

There is a distinction to be made between ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’. ‘Faith’ implies a deep and unconditional trust in God’s love and care for us, even in our sinfulness. ‘Faithfulness’ or ‘fidelity’ suggests maintaining, through thick and thin and perhaps over a long period of time, the integrity of a relationship (as in marriage). Obviously both apply in this passage.

We all need to live by faith and faithfulness. Here is one of the secrets of peace and happiness in our lives.

Matthew 17:14-20

Today we have the story of a father distraught over the erratic behaviour of his son. As usually is the case, Mark’s telling of this story is much more dramatic. Nevertheless, Matthew keeps the main points.

There is the desperation of the father who feels helpless at the apparent uncontrollable behaviour of his son. The symptoms appear very similar to epilepsy, a condition which is quite well understood today and whose causes – at least in general – are known. But it must have been easy for people in those days to believe that some evil power had suddenly taken hold of an otherwise normal person to make them behave in such bizarre ways.

The man had at first approached the disciples who were of no help. Jesus expresses dismay and disappointment at the people’s lack of faith, presumably including that of his own disciples, in his criticism.

Jesus then drives out the demon plaguing the boy and he was made whole. The disciples, who had done their share of healing on their missionary excursions, wondered why they were not able to heal the boy. “Because you have so little trust/faith,” he told them. Even a tiny amount of real trust in God can move mountains, he said. “Nothing would be impossible for you.”

How strong is my faith and trust in God’s care of me? Jesus’ words, of course, are not a carte blanche just to ask for anything that comes into our heads. It is not an invitation to manipulate God; on the contrary, it is a call to put all our trust in God knowing that, whatever happens to us, he has our best interests at heart. Such a faith, accompanied by a deep love, is what brings happiness and peace into our lives.

Week 19 | Monday

Ezek 1:2-5, 24-28

We begin today readings from the prophet Ezekiel. The language is often very apocalyptic in style and full of symbolism. His special contribution to the prophetic tradition was through his interest in the temple and liturgy. He also had a great influence on the period after the Exile, when the refugee Jews returned to Jerusalem. He has been called the “father of Judaism”.

He became a prophet in Babylon, as a member of the first group of exiles deported by King Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC. He was the first to receive the prophetic call outside of Israel. His first task was to prepare his fellow countrymen in Babylon for the final destruction of Jerusalem, which they believed God would not allow to happen. But Ezekiel reproached Israel for his sinful and idolatrous behaviour and foretold more destruction and a second and more complete deportation into exile for the people of Jerusalem. All of which, of course, happened in 587 BC.

But, after this event, just as Jeremiah had believed, Ezekiel thought that the exiles were the hope of Israel’s restoration, once God’s allotted time for the exile had been accomplished and they could return to Jerusalem.

Today’s reading begins by introducing Ezekiel in the third person. The time of this first vision is dated as the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile in Babylon, 593-92 BC. The name Ezekiel means “God is strong”, or “God strengthens”, or “God makes hard” in different contexts of the book. The prophet, like Jeremiah, belonged to a priestly family. (‘El’ in a name indicates ‘God’ - hence, for example, the archangels - Micha-el, Gabri-el and Rapha-el.)

Ezekiel then proceeds to speak in the first person, “The hand of the Lord came on me”. This phrase is repeated six times in the book and indicates a powerful experience of God revealing himself in a vision.

The experience described here in part is called the “Chariot of Yahweh”. Its central message is that God transcends any specific place. He is not, as the tradition held, tied to the Temple in Jerusalem but can be with his people in their exile (as he was with them in their journey through the desert during the Exodus). This is a breakthrough which will be picked up by the people of the New Testament and emphasised by Paul.

The vision begins with the words, “I looked”. The symbols at the opening of the vision all speak of the presence and power of God: the stormy wind, the great cloud surrounded by light, the fire with flashes of lightning and the “sheen like bronze at the heart of the fire”.

In the centre appear what seem to be four animals in human for. ‘Four’ represents completeness as also represented elsewhere in the Old Testament by the image of four directions and four quarters of the earth. The idea appears several times in this chapter and over 40 times in the whole book.

The four creatures which are later referred to as “cherubim” attend on God’s throne. Here they represent God’s creation. In our reading their detailed description has been omitted but the four separately symbolise:

“humanity”, God’s appointed ruler of creation (see the creation story in Genesis);

the “lion”, the strongest of wild animals;

the “ox”, the most powerful of domestic animals;

and the “eagle”, the greatest of the birds.

They will appear again in the Book of Revelation and are commonly depicted in medieval art where they represent the four evangelists (Matthew the man; Mark the lion; Luke the ox; and John the eagle).

Above the vault over the heads of the cherubim was a sapphire shaped like a throne on which sat “a being that looked like a man”. This is the prophet’s way of describing God but he is careful not to say that he saw God directly. No one could see God and live.

Again from his loins upward and downward the figure like a man was surrounded by fire and the colour of bronze. A bright light like a rainbow penetrating the clouds on a rainy day shone all around.

To the prophet it all spoke of the glory and presence of the Lord and he fell to the ground in adoration. The glory of Yahweh is often described in the Bible as a bright cloud (the pillar of cloud with the Exodus people; Jesus covered by a cloud during the Transfiguration; Jesus, after his resurrection, ascends into a cloud, that is, into the presence of his Father [Acts 1:9]).

What is significant here is that for so many centuries God’s glory and presence had been linked to the Temple in Jerusalem. But now the Temple is far away and God is with his people in their Babylonian exile. This is a major theme in the first half of Ezekiel’s message. This is a foretaste of the presence of God through Jesus and, through the Spirit, in the Church where God’s people become his temple.

Spirituality in later times will also constantly find the glory of God in all of creation. As the poet said, “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.” God is always with us revealing his truth, goodness and beauty to us. It is for us to open our eyes and learn to see. We may not have apocalyptic visions like Ezekiel but we are surrounded by dazzling beauty if only we would look.

Matthew 17:22-27

For the second time Jesus warns his disciples about what is to come: his suffering, death and resurrection. Once again the word ‘delivered’ or ‘handed over’ (Greek paradidomi, paradidwmi) is used. It is a kind of refrain running right through the Gospel and applied to John the Baptist, to Jesus, to the disciples and the giving of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

We are told that the disciples are overwhelmed with grief over what Jesus says. Whether that is purely out of sorrow for Jesus or whether it represents their disillusionment, is hard to say. This was not the kind of end they were expecting to the coming of the Messiah.

The second part of today’s reading is a peculiar scene, only to be found in Matthew. The collectors of the Temple tax want to know whether Jesus pays it or not. Peter assures them that he does.

But on entering the house (there is that anonymous ‘house’ again, which seems to symbolise the Church or the Christian community) Jesus asks Peter (though, interestingly, he calls him by his old name ‘Simon’): “Do kings collect tax from their sons, that is, their subjects, or from foreigners?” “From others,” replies Peter. And, in fact, the Romans did collect tax from their colonised peoples and not from their own citizens.

In that case, Jesus says, the sons, that is, he and his disciples, should be exempt from paying the Temple tax. After all, the Temple is God’s house and Jesus is his Son and his disciples are his brothers, sons of the same Father. They should therefore be exempt.

But to avoid giving scandal and misunderstanding, Peter is told to catch a fish in whose mouth he will find a shekel, enough to pay for both of them. A half shekel was levied each year on all Jewish males of 20 years or older. It was for the upkeep of the Temple. A half shekel at this time was roughly equivalent to two days’ wages.

This passage seems to reflect a dilemma of the early Church. A double dilemma. Should Christians who are Jews continue to pay the Temple tax? Should Christians in general have to pay tax to a pagan government, especially one whose emperor claims to be a deity?

The first dilemma solved itself in time, especially with the destruction of the Temple (which had already taken place when Matthew was written). The second dilemma took longer. The problem seems to have been solved by the principle laid down elsewhere by Jesus: Give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor and to God what belongs to God.

We too have to discern what is legitimately required of us by our governments and make our contribution to the needs of our society while at the same time not compromising on issues where universal principles of truth and justice are at stake. Civil disobedience is sometimes not only a right but also a responsibility.

Week 19 | Tuesday

Ezek 2.8 – 3.4

The reading, at first sight, describes a strange apocalyptic vision but its meaning is clear.

The vision of the chariot of Yahweh is interrupted by the vision of the scroll or book, of which we read just a part today. This vision was probably Ezekiel’s first in which, like Jeremiah and Isaiah, he is called to be God’s spokesperson.

God speaks to Ezekiel and calls him ’son of man’. This is a phrase peculiar in the Old Testament to Ezekiel with the exception of two instances in the prophet Daniel. It is used 93 times altogether in Ezekiel and its purpose is to emphasise the great gap between a transcendent God and the human being. But in Daniel it takes on a messianic meaning, taken up later by Jesus, who refers to himself several times as the (not a) “Son of Man”.

Ezekiel is first called on to listen carefully to what God has to say. In this he is not to be like the people who are rebellious and disobedient. “Be not like this house of rebellion.”

The prophet is then to open his mouth and eat what is given him. A hand then reaches out a scroll for the prophet to eat. Unlike most ancient scrolls, it is written on both sides. The implication is that it is totally filled with God’s word and God’s judgement on his people.

The scroll was filled with ‘lamentations, wailings and moaning’. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s mission was first to communicate God’s displeasure with his people and to warn them of the sufferings they would endure as the result of their faithlessness. Later on, again like Jeremiah, he will preach a message of hope.

Following the Lord’s instructions, Ezekiel eats the scroll, whose contents he is to share with the people of Israel. When he was being called by Yahweh, the mouth of Isaiah had been touched by a seraph. In the case of Jeremiah, Yahweh had put his words into the prophet’s mouth. Here Ezekiel uses an even more graphic image of how God’s word becomes part of him.

In spite of its content, Ezekiel found that the scroll was “as sweet as honey in my mouth”. However bitter their content, the word of God is always sweet to the taste. Because God’s word is always spoken with love and with the well-being of the recipient in mind.

Ezekiel is then instructed to go to the people and to speak Yahweh’s words to them, the words that were on the scroll and which have been fully assimilated by the prophet.

The scene represents Ezekiel’s calling to be a prophet and to speak in God’s name. The eating of the scroll is a symbol of Ezekiel totally absorbing and assimilating into himself the word of God. It will literally become part of him.

We will find a similar image later in the Gospel in the famous chapter 6 of John where Jesus calls himself the Bread of Life. “Whoever eats this bread will live forever” (John 6:51).  To eat that Bread is to take into oneself the very Spirit of Christ and be fully united with him in his Risen Body, the Church. The image of eating a scroll will also appear in the Book of Revelation (Rev 10:1-11).

The Word of God that comes to us through Jesus Christ is not just a set of ideas to be known or even defended. It is a vision of life that we need to absorb into our very being so that it colours and is behind everything we say and do. It results in our being able to say, as Paul did, “I live, no it is not I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). And we need to remember the Eucharistic element in the Liturgy of the Word. The Word of God which is proclaimed to us is meant to be ‘eaten’ and totally assimilated. There is a real presence of Christ there. He is speaks to us through it but are we listening? It  is a part of our liturgy that is so often seen as of less importance.

Matthew 18:1-5, 10, 12-14

The discourse on the church

Today we come to the fourth of the five discourses which are the distinctive characteristic of Matthew’s gospel. This one focuses on the Church, the Christian community, and in particular the relationships between its members.

So it begins by asking the question: Who is the greatest in the Kingdom and, by implication, in the Christian community, which is a sign of the Kingdom? Jesus answers the question very simply by putting a child in front of his disciples. To become the greatest is to become a small child.

Why? Children have their qualities and their defects. They are intellectually and emotionally immature. But children have some precious qualities which they often lose as they grow up. They are born free of prejudice and they are totally open to learning. It is this quality that we need to enter the Reign of God. To be totally open and free of prejudice when it comes to listening to God. To be fully teachable and malleable and flexible. Then we are ready to receive everything that God wants us to have and to become everything God wants us to become. Furthermore, to welcome a person who has these qualities in Jesus’ name is to welcome Christ himself.

From that the Gospel moves on to another related consideration. It skips a passage which deals with those who cause others to fall into sin and the kind of punishment such people deserve.

Instead, it moves from children to the ‘little ones’. These little ones are not just children but the weaker ones in the community and they may be adults. But they are the ones who can very easily be led astray by the bad example which others give. And there are severe penalties for doing this (mentioned in the omitted passage).

This is emphasised by the parable of the lost sheep. God is compared to a shepherd who has lost just one sheep out of a hundred. When he finds it again he is happier than over the other ninety-nine which have not strayed. Such, the gospel concludes, is the desire of God, that not even one of the ‘little ones’ be lost.

How terrible, then, if one of us is responsible for someone being separated from God forever! One feels that it happens quite a lot in our society and in our Church.

Week 19 | Wednesday

Ezek 9:1-7; 10:18-22

The reading is in two parts:

1, Slaughter of idolaters (9:1ff); and 2, God’s glory leaves the Temple (10:1ff).  It is another apocalyptic-style account using very symbolic language in which God’s punishment comes on all those who have sinned.

As Ezekiel listens there comes the thundering voice of God. He is calling on the “scourges of the city”, that is, those who are to inflict punishment on wrongdoers.

Immediately six men are seen coming from the gate on the north side of Jerusalem, each one armed with a deadly weapon, a war club or a battle-axe. In their midst is another man, dressed in white and with a scribe’s ink horn in his belt. Clearly the latter is the one who keeps a record of people’s doings. These are the six guardian angels of the city with the seventh dressed in linen. They correspond to the seven angels of the judgement in the Book of Revelation (Rev 8:2,6).

They stop in front of the bronze altar in the Temple. Now the glory of the Lord, traditionally understood as seated on the cherubim (in the Holy of Holies), moves towards the Temple threshold. God is leaving the Temple.

He gives instructions to the man in white. He is to put a mark on the foreheads of all those who deplore the idolatrous practices that are going on. These are the faithful remnant of God’s people. The mark was a taw, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which looks like an “x” (and so translated here as “cross”). The rest were to be mercilessly struck down. (The text does not indicate that anyone was, in fact, found worthy to be marked with a taw but it would indicate the remnant that was spared to return from exile.)

Ezekiel is pre-eminently the prophet of personal and individual retribution. The innocent inhabitants of Jerusalem are to be spared while those guilty of idolatry are punished. With other prophets, the whole community, the innocent along with the guilty, may be punished.

The punishment begins right at the entrance to the Temple where God’s people are and begins with the eldest and excludes none - old men, youths and maidens, women and children. The Temple is to become defiled with the corpses of people who are unclean. It does not matter because Yahweh is no longer there.

In the second part of the reading, Yahweh leaves his sanctuary. Riding as usual on the cherubim, he leaves the Temple by the east gate. The east gate was the main ceremonial entrance into the temple and was also known as “the gate of the Lord”. It overlooked the Kedron valley towards the Mount of Olives.

Now Yahweh has left Jerusalem and the Temple. In the final verse (not part of our reading) we are told that “the glory of the Lord rose from the city and took a stand on the mountain which is to the east of the city”.

For us Christians, God is never confined to one place. He is everywhere and we are urged to seek and find him in all things. We do not seek him in a temple. On the contrary, we are called to be his temple, the place where he is present. However, we can expel him from our hearts and bring ruin on ourselves just as the people of Jerusalem did.

The choice is ours.

Matthew 18:15-20

Today’s part of the discourse shifts from the harm that we can do to others to the harm that others can do to the community and how the community and its members should respond. Clearly we are speaking here of some serious wrong which hurts the mission of the Church community.

The wrongdoer is to be tackled on three levels and this reflects what has just gone before about bringing back the sheep which is lost. Reconciliation, not punishment, is the objective.

If the wrong directly affects one person, then that person or another should go along to the wrongdoer privately and try to help him/her change his/her ways. If this works, then that is the end of the matter. However, if the wrongdoer will not listen, then one or two others who are also aware of the wrongdoing should be brought along as corroboration. This is based on a passage from Deuteronomy: “A single witness cannot suffice to convict a man of a crime or offence of any kind; whatever the misdemeanour, the evidence of two witnesses or three is required to sustain the charge.” (Deut 19:15).

If the wrongdoer remains obstinate in the face of this evidence, then the whole community is to be brought in. And, if in the face of the whole community, there is still no sign of repentance, then the person is to be expelled and treated like “a pagan or a tax collector”, in other words, as a total outsider. The tax collectors were among the most despised people in the community. They were local people employed by Roman tax contractors to collect taxes for them. Because they worked for Rome and often demanded unreasonable payments (they had to make a profit!), they gained a bad reputation and were generally hated and considered traitors to their own people and their religion.

The word Matthew uses for ‘community’ here is ‘church’, ekklesia (’ekklhsia) or, in Hebrew, qahal, which refers to the gathering of a Christian community. As mentioned earlier, this is only one of two places (the other is Matt 16:18) where this term is used in the gospels.

Jesus now goes further in saying that all such decisions by the community have God’s full endorsement: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven (i.e. by God)” and “if two of you on earth agree about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father” and “where two or three meet in my name, I shall be there with them”. This mandate seems to be given to the community as a whole and not just to specific individuals.

It would be worth our while going carefully through this text and see how it applies to our church situation today. To what extent do we feel responsible for the wrongdoings of our

fellow-Christians? To what extent do we realise that our behaviour both as individuals and groups reflects on the overall witness that the Church is called to give as the Body of Christ? Do people clearly see the message of the Gospel from the way we live both individually and corporately?

While, on the one hand, we are told to be compassionate and non-judgmental, are we over-tolerant of what people in the community who believe that anything they do is just their own business? Every Christian community has a solemn responsibility to give witness to the vision of life that Jesus gave to us. There have then to be standards of behaviour which bind all. Moments of weakness can be and should be treated with compassion but deliberate and continued flouting of our central commitment to truth, love, justice and so on cannot be overlooked or allowed to undermine the central mission of the Christian community to be a sacrament of the Kingdom. It is not a question of image but of our integrity.

What has all this to do with the way we use the Sacrament of Reconciliation and what is the relationship of the sacrament to this passage? The passage is closely linked with what Jesus says about the problem of giving scandal, of being a stumbling block in people coming to Christ. At the same time, as tomorrow’s passage indicates the long-term aim above all is not punishment but reconciliation and healing of divisions.

Week 19 | Thursday

Ezek 12:1-2 - The mime of the emigrant

Ezekiel is instructed by God to go through an elaborate mime as a message to his people to warn them of the coming deportation of the people of Jerusalem into exile in Babylon.

The people are described by God as rebels, as people who have eyes but do not see, have ears but do not hear, because they do not want to. Jesus will use similar terms in speaking of the people who refused to listen to him. He will quote from Isaiah, who received these instructions from Yahweh when he was being called as a prophet:

Go and say this to the people:

Listen carefully but you will not understand!
Look intently, but you shall know nothing!
You are to make the heart of this people sluggish,
to dull their ears and close their eyes;
else their eyes will see, their ears hear,
their heart understand,
and they will turn and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9-10; cf. Matt 13:14-15)

Ezekiel is told to pack up all his things like a person leaving home and going off into distant exile. Maybe when the people see him doing this its meaning will begin to dawn on them and they will realise that it is pointing to their rebellious behaviour.

The packing is to done by day in the sight of all but then he is to slip out in the evening but in such a way that he is seen as leaving covertly. He is to leave in darkness, through a hole in the mud wall of his house. His face is to be covered so that he cannot see the countryside which he is entering. All this is to make Ezekiel, the Lord’s prophet, a symbol or sign for what is going to happen to Israel.

Ezekiel did everything just as the Lord had commanded in full sight of the people. (We need to remember that he was a prophet and people would wonder about the significance of his rather strange actions.)

The following morning God again spoke to Ezekiel. When the people ask the prophet what is the meaning of what he is doing, they are to be told that the oracle (the mime is understand as having a message from God) is directed against the people of Jerusalem and the whole of Israel everywhere.

The meaning of Ezekiel’s mime is then clearly spelt out: the people will go into exile and banishment; King Zedekiah (”their ruler”) will carry his own belongings and go through a hole in the city wall; his face will be covered so that he will not be able to see the country.

In fact, Nebuchadnezzar will come and destroy Jerusalem and the people will be brought off into exile to Babylon. During the siege of the city, King Zedekiah and his army will try to escape through a breach in the city walls. But he was captured by the Babylonians and brought to Riblah. There his two sons were killed in his presence and then his eyes were put out before he was brought off to Babylon (see 2 Kings 25). The king’s blindness is a symbol of the blindness of the whole people.

In the Gospel Jesus frequently is seen healing the blind (those who cannot see) and the deaf (those who cannot hear) and the dumb (those who cannot speak). These are afflictions all of us can suffer from and prevent us from knowing and carrying out what God wants in our lives.

Let us ask today for healing and docility to God’s will for us. “Lord, that I may see!”

Matthew 18:21-19:1

The last part of the discourse is on forgiveness. This is not unconnected with the previous section on excommunicating the unrepentant brother or sister. As soon as the brother/sister does repent, there must be forgiveness - not once but indefinitely, 77 times.

The reason is given in the parable which Jesus speaks about the two servants in debt. The one who had a huge debt to the king was forgiven but then refused to forgive a relatively trivial debt to a fellow servant. (Ten thousand talents would be the equivalent of hundreds of millions of a major currency today and the 300 denarii would be the equivalent about three months’ wages.)

The ones with the big debt to the king are clearly ourselves; the ones with the small debts to us are our brothers and sisters.

We do not expect God to forgive us once or twice or any limited number of times but every time. It is nowhere written that we have, say, only 10 chances of going to confession and, once our quota is used up, there is nothing left. But, if that is true of our relationship with God, it also has to be true in our relationships with others. We can never refuse an offer of reconciliation. And, we might add, forgiveness is only complete when reconciliation takes place.

This is not at all the same as turning a blind eye to wrongdoing. Yesterday’s text made that very clear. We are talking about healing divisions between people; we must never put obstacles in the way of that.

We have now come to the end of this discourse indicated by the first words of chapter 19: “When Jesus finished these words…”

Week 19 | Friday

Ezek 16:1-15, 60, 63 or 16:59-63

[As the first reading speaks in rather explicit language of childbirth, there is an alternative reading (see below) for those who might find it offensive or ‘indelicate’. The writers and readers of the Old Testament were more comfortable than we are with these everyday ‘facts of life’]

FIRST READING (Ezekiel 16:1-15,60,63)

We have today a rather striking allegorical history of Israel. In summary, Israel is seen as the faithless wife of Yahweh, a ‘whore’ of alien gods. This is a familiar image in prophetic literature from Hosea onwards. Ezekiel develops it in a long allegory (resumed in another form in ch. 23) surveying the whole history of Israel. As in Hosea, this allegory ends with a free pardon from the husband who establishes a new covenant, thus prefiguring the marriage of God with his people in messianic days, a theme which is taken up in the New Testament.

In a touching and progressing series of images the prophet describes how God chose his people, cared for them, showered them with all they needed and much more and how in the end they ungratefully abused all they had received. In spite of that he will not abandon them.

God describes himself as the spouse of Israel, who turns out to be an utterly faithless wife, prostituting herself (often literally) before false gods. The purpose of the allegory is for Ezekiel to confront Jerusalem with the terrible things she has been doing.

First, she is reminded of her pagan and idolatrous origins. “You belong to the land of Canaan. Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.” The “land of Canaan” was roughly equivalent to Lebanon and Israel today. The Amorites were pre-Israelite, Semitic inhabitants of Palestine and the Hittites were non-Semitic residents of Canaan who had flourished in Asia Minor before 1000 BC. In biblical tradition, Amorites and Hittities refer generally to the pre-Israelite population. They are seen as different from Israel, which traced its origins through Abraham to Nahor.

Jerusalem had, therefore, a centuries-old, pre-Israelite history and the city for a long time resisted conquest by the Israelites. It did not come fully under Israelite rule until David’s time. [Some matter for reflection here on the mutual rights of Israelis and Palestinians today.]

Israel is then described as an abandoned baby immediately after birth. The navel cord has not been cut nor has the infant been washed clean of blood. There is no one to rub the baby with salt (a custom still practiced by Palestinian Arabs into this century) or to wrap the little body in swaddling clothes (as Mary did with her Son).

In a word, there was no one to care for this child which lay, unloved and abandoned, “regarded as loathsome”, in an open field. Exposure of new-born babies was common in ancient societies but abhorred by Israel.

Then God came along, a prospective husband in search of a bride, and saw the helpless child still bathed in the polluting birth blood and growing like a wild plant until God gave his blessing of life and prosperity: “Live and grow like the grass of the fields.” This is God’s will for all his creatures.

The birth blood, a source of uncleanness, is seen as a symbol of the polluting and corrupting influences of paganism on Israel before its call in the covenant of Sinai. (Women who gave birth to a child were regarded as unclean for several weeks.)

From that moment Israel began to grow and mature as symbolised by the appearance of breasts and pubic hair. However, the girl was still naked.

So now God again passes by. “Your time had come,” he tells Israel. “the time for love”, that is, for marriage. God covers the girl’s nakedness with part of his own cloak, the sign of his intention to marry her. “I made you mine,” he says, like a groom speaking of his bride.

From now he pours out his attentions:

- his bride is bathed in cleansing water

- the polluting menstrual blood of idolatry is washed off

- there is an anointing with oil

- she is dressed in the very finest of clothes, clothes fit for a queen and sandals made from the same leather used to cover the tabernacle.

- she is adorned with jewellery: bracelets, necklace, nose-ring and ear-rings, and a beautiful wedding diadem.

- she is “loaded with gold and silver, dressed in fine linen and embroidered silks”, as was the Temple in Jerusalem.

- she was fed with only the finest of food, the kind used in offerings in the Temple.

In time she grew into a beautiful woman, a queen, the Lord’s bride.

She was looked up to and admired by peoples everywhere for she was bathed in the very glory of the Lord, her spouse. This was especially so in the days of David and Solomon, who was famous for his God-given wisdom, his wealth and the building of the Temple.

Unfortunately, all this went to her head. She forgot the origins of all her glory. She turned her beauty to prostitution in the two senses of being unfaithful to her Lord and of actual indulgence in the fertility rites of her pagan Canaanite neighbours. Like a whore she offered sexual favours to all comers.

But, however unfaithful Jerusalem may be, her spouse will remain true to the covenant they made and will make it last for ever. It is time now, reminds the Lord through his prophet, for Jerusalem to be covered with shame for what she has done. And when God forgives, she will be reduced to a shameful silence.

This allegory in many ways can be applied to our own Church and its evolution from Gentile and pagan beginnings in so many parts of the world. We too have been blessed with an extraordinary cornucopia of spiritual and cultural richness over the centuries. But we have also prostituted ourselves frequently, sometimes figuratively and sometimes literally.

This allegory has much to say to us. Let us not just read it as a condemnation of pre-Christian Jerusalem but a salutary reminder for our own relationship with our loving God.

ALTERNATIVE READING (Ezekiel 16:59-63)

This reading is taken from the same passage as the one above but focuses on its conclusion. To understand its significance, then, it is helpful to have read the previous reading.

On the one hand, Jerusalem will be treated as she deserves for breaking her covenant with God. She will be destroyed and her people taken away into bitter exile in Babylon.

But God will not forget his people. He will remember the covenant he made when “she was a girl”, that is, in her younger days when the covenant was first made at Mount Sinai and he will now make a covenant that will last forever.

Jerusalem will then be reduced to a speechless silence of remorse for her faithlessness. Especially when Yahweh takes “those older and younger sisters” and gives them to her as “daughters”.  This refers to Samaria and Sodom which came under the rule of Jerusalem.

In spite of everything, Yahweh’s people will be pardoned and the covenant will be renewed. On her part, Jerusalem will remember with shame and repentance the terrible things she has done.

We, too, provided we have genuine repentance and long to be reconciled again with our Lord in love, can be sure that God’s love and compassion will be poured over us.

Matthew 19:3-12

We return now, after the discourse on the Church, to a narrative section which describes Jesus’ ministry in Judaea and Jerusalem. He is no longer in the north, in Galilee but in the south. We are now entering the sixth section of Matthew’s gospel which will conclude with the parables of the last times.

Today’s passage begins with a discussion about a contentious issue between Jesus and the Pharisees, an issue which continues to be contentious in our own time. The question in itself is straightforward but, as was often the case, it was thrown at Jesus to test his orthodoxy with regard to the Law.

They ask: “Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?” Among the Jews there were two schools of thought on divorce. The school of Shammai would only allow marital unfaithfulness as a justification for divorce. The Hillel school, however, would allow a man to divorce his wife if she did anything he did not like, such as burning his food! Jesus clearly sides with the first interpretation.

Using two passages from the creation story in the book of Genesis Jesus gives an uncompromising reply which it would be difficult for his opponents to challenge: “The creator from the beginning ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘This is why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become one flesh’.” Jesus goes on to say, “They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, no human being must separate.” And, in fact, in a good marriage, the two becoming one flesh is a reality. It is in the death of one partner that that can become very clear.

Marriage, therefore, as the intimate bonding of a man and woman is part of God’s plan for the human race; it is not something to be undone by us. However, the Pharisees are not satisfied with this answer. They press their case further by asking: “Why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?” Jesus replies that that was simply a concession to the “unteachability” of the people in his own time but that it was not the situation from the beginning. The purpose of the writ was obviously to formalise a separation and allow a husband to enter into another marriage.

Jesus says that “the man who divorces his wife…and marries another, is guilty of adultery”. Nothing is said of the woman who might divorce; in a patriarchal and male-dominated world this would have been far less common, if not impossible. The woman had very little say in such matters. (In Mark’s version of this passage, both husbands and wives are included. He was writing for a Gentile audience where the rules were somewhat different.)

There is, however, an exception mentioned only by Matthew which has caused problems for exegetes and moral theologians. He has Jesus give “fornication” as one possible reason justifying divorce. The problem is that the word Matthew uses, porneia (porneia), is not clear in its meaning. It is variously translated as ‘fornication’, ‘lewd conduct’, ‘unfaithfulness’, or ‘marital unfaithfulness’. And it seems to apply only to the wife.

Unfaithfulness, leading to an illegitimate pregnancy, would, of course, in that society be a very serious breach of family purity and the integrity of the family (i.e. the father’s) line.  The child born of such a relationship would be a bastard, coming from another family line and, at birth, might not be recognisable as such. In fact, a wife could be stoned to death for entering into such a relationship.

Jesus seems to say that, in such a case, a man would be justified in separating from such a wife and in entering on another marriage. Otherwise, any repudiation of the marriage contract for any other reason and to enter another contract would be adultery.

In our secular societies, unfaithfulness as well as many lesser reasons are given for justifying a legal divorce. If the original contract is known to be valid, the Catholic Church does not recognise any reason for its termination. However, in these times, divorce is not always the result of one partner’s decision. It is often the result of the mutual breakdown of the marriage relationship where they can no longer live together with mutual love and respect but where there are mutual feelings of hostility and unhappiness which are irreconcilable. Of course, the Church allows and may even encourage legal separation in situations of serious incompatibility but it does not allow remarriage. Even so, it is well known that many Catholics do enter a second marriage, which can turn out to be stable and enduring.

Whether this position will be maintained in the future remains to be seen. The issue is seen nowadays to be more complex and the nature of marriage and the contract contain elements not considered in the past.

In any case, Jesus’ position was seen by his own disciples as rather severe. If things were the way he saw them, then they thought it would be better not to get married at all! Jesus makes a statement which perhaps we should listen to more carefully than we often do. While, on the one hand, he lays down a clear principle he also indicates that not everyone may have the strength to observe it. There seems to be a call, then, for some compassion and flexibility in implementation. “It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.”

He goes on to describe three kinds of people who can live lives free from sexual activity:

those who are congenitally impotent (”born that way from their mother’s womb”);

those who are physically castrated (”made so by human intervention”) - what are commonly called ‘eunuchs’;

and, thirdly, “those who have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”. This last group can include either those, who like Paul, choose to live celibate lives in order to work for the Kingdom and the Gospel or those whose marriages have broken down for one reason or another and choose to remain celibate for the rest of their lives also for the sake of the Gospel. This last does not seem to be a universal requirement: “Let anyone accept this who can.”

Marriage is seen here very much linked to the call to work for the Kingdom. If it is an obstacle, it should be avoided; if not, then one can and should work for the Kingdom through one’s marriage.

Week 19 | Saturday

Ezek 18:1-10, 13, 30-32

Apparently there was a saying among the Israelites:

Fathers have eaten unripe grapes
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

In addition to today’s reading, we can also find the saying in Jeremiah (31:29). The meaning was clear enough. Whatever wrongs the ancestors had done, their offspring would pay the penalty. We see that the idea was still prevalent in the time of Jesus. One day as he walked along, Jesus saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, was it his sin or that of his parents that caused him to be born blind?” To which Jesus replied: “Neither.” (John 9:1-3)

However, both Jeremiah and Ezekiel (not to mention Jesus) reject the idea. Jeremiah says: “Through his own fault only shall anyone die: the teeth of him who eats the unripe grapes will be set on edge” (Jer 31:30). While Ezekiel, quoting Yahweh, says: “I swear that there shall no longer be anyone among you who will repeat this proverb in Israel. For all lives are mine: the life of the father is like the life of the son, both are mine; only the one who sins shall die.” In other words, if any people suffered (as the Israelites were suffering under Nebuchadnezzar at this time), the blame could not be put at the door of their parents or grandparents. Everyone is responsible for the effects of their own wrongdoing - “only the one who sins shall die”.

There then follows a list of actions which can be expected from the virtuous, actions which were constantly violated by the inhabitants of Jerusalem leading eventually to the utter destruction of their city and its Temple and their being either slaughtered or carried away to Babylon in exile.

Among the good things listed are:

Not eating on the mountains. This referred to performing idolatrous rituals on the shrines in the mountains.

Not raising their eyes to the pagan idols, which Israel was now worshipping

Not having adulterous relations with a neighbour’s wife

Not having sexual relations with a woman during her menstruation. (Contact with blood was always forbidden to the Jews.)

Not oppressing people.

Giving back a pledge which had been offered when money was paid back after a loan

Not committing robbery.

Feeding the hungry and clothing the naked

Not lending at interest or demanding extra payment for a loan

Judging fairly in a dispute between two people

Living by Yahweh’s statutes and observing his ordinances.

Such a person (irrespective of how badly his predecessors behaved) is a good person and will surely live.

On the other hand (again irrespective of how well a predecessor behaved) if a person violates all these things, he shall surely die. “His death shall be his own fault.”

The reading concludes by Yahweh saying that he will judge “each one according to his ways”. We are then urged to turn away from and be converted from all wrongdoing and there will be no reason to find a person guilty in any way.

“Make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit… For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies… Return and live!”

Perhaps we do not exactly think like the Israelites of those days did but how many times have we been guilty of laying the blame for things we did on other people. “You made me do it!” There is in our society a strong tendency to find scapegoats, to concentrate certain areas of wrongdoing on one or a small group of people.

Today’s reading reminds us that we are wholly responsible for the guilt of our wrongdoing but at the same time let us hear again those words of the Lord: “I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies.” Jesus told us: “I have come that they may have life - life in greater abundance.” Let us open ourselves to receiving that life.

Matthew 19:13-15

This short passage is an echo of what we already saw at the beginning of the discourse on the Church (Matt 18:1-4). Parents were bringing their children for Jesus to bless. The disciples, with the officiousness of minor officials, thought they were doing their Master a favour by protecting him from such trivial nuisances.

Jesus scolds them; the children are to be allowed to come to him. “It is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.”

Not to children alone but to those who have the qualities of the child: the simplicity and openness, the teachability, the freedom from prejudice, the readiness for change and adaptation. Only such people are ready to hear the message of the Gospel in its fullness.

The passage leads naturally into the next one about the rich man who asked Jesus what he should do to enter eternal life. For all his wealth, he would prove to be wanting in this particular area of openness.

Week 20 | Monday

Ezek 24:15-24

The death of the prophet’s wife becomes a symbol of how the people are to respond to the loss of their Temple.

God warns Ezekiel that he is going to lose his wife, the “delight of [his] eyes”, through sudden illness and death. She would be taken away by a “sudden blow”, some swiftly fatal disease, perhaps some form of plague.

However, when it happens, Ezekiel is to display none of the traditional forms of mourning but is to suffer his loss privately. He is not to mourn or weep. He is to groan in the silence of his own heart, not to lament the dead. He is to keep his turban fastened; it was normal for the mourner to uncover his head and put dust on it. He is to keep his sandals on and not to cover his beard (a gesture of shame or uncleanness). Nor is he to eat the customary bread, perhaps referring to a funeral meal in which neighbours would take part as an expression of sympathy and commiseration.

That very evening his wife died and Ezekiel told the people what he had been instructed to do. Not surprisingly, the people wanted to know the meaning of this rather unusual and unfeeling behaviour. Ezekiel then passes on the message that God had given him for the people.

The beloved sanctuary of God, the Temple, “the delight of your eyes” and “the passion of your souls”, is about to be desecrated, that is, burnt down by Nebuchadnezzar. When it happens, the people are to do what Ezekiel did after the death of his wife. Not that the citizens of Jerusalem are forbidden to lament their sins, but that there will simply be no time for mourning; the catastrophe will be too sudden and cataclysmic. Many, in fact, will simply be cut down by the Babylonian invaders. It will be the punishment for the people’s immorality and idolatries.

Ezekiel and his behaviour over the death of his wife is to be a sign for the people. “All that he did, you shall do when it happens.”

It is not the Temple they are to mourn for but for themselves and their failure to recognise that Yahweh is Lord. The loss of a building is something far less significant than the loss of their own integrity and wholeness.

Obviously, there is no teaching here to discourage people from mourning the loss of loved ones. Rather, the lesson is that we can become so focused on the loss of others that we fail to see  how much should be mourned in our own lives because of our constant failure in our relationships with God and the living neighbour.

Matthew 19:16-22

We have here a story of a young man who did not have that simple trust of the child which Jesus spoke about in the immediately preceding passage. (Only Matthew describes him as ‘young’.)

He was apparently a good man, an unusually good man. He asks Jesus what he needs to do in order to have eternal life. However, he seemed to be operating out of the legalistic mind with the emphasis on external actions. For Jesus what we are is more important than what we do. The man also asked about ‘eternal life’. In Matthew (and in Mark and Luke) ‘eternal life’ is really synonymous with ‘entering the Kingdom of Heaven [God]’ and ‘being saved’. It is to be totally taken up into God’s world and sharing God’s understanding of life.

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus asks him. “There is One alone who is good.” This seems to be a way of telling the man that goodness is not something merely external. The real source of goodness is inside, although, of course, it will flow out to the exterior. Is it also a way of asking the man who he really thinks Jesus is?

In any case, the man is told, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” As we have just said, to ‘enter into life’ is equivalent to entering the Kingdom. And Jesus mentions just four of the commandments, all touching on relationships with other people. And he adds, “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

The man is not satisfied. “I have kept all these. What more do I need to do?” Jesus tells him that if he wants to be perfect then he should sell off everything he has, give it to the poor and then become a disciple of Jesus.

Obviously, the man was not expecting this. He was very rich and, although he wanted to serve God, he was not prepared to separate himself from the security of his wealth. And he walked away from Jesus full of sadness. It is an example of Jesus’ words earlier on that we cannot at the same time serve God and wealth.

To be rich is not just to have a lot of money. It is to have a lot more money than others and especially to have more money than one needs in a world where there are people who do not have enough for a life of dignity. And wealth is very relative: a person close to the poverty line in Europe could be seen as very rich in a remote African or Asian village.

So as long as the man had to cling to his money, he could not - as he claimed to be doing - be loving his neighbour as his own self. Clearly he was not yet ready for an unconditional following of Jesus. He was not able to follow the example of Peter and Andrew, James and John who left their boats, nets and family to go and put all their security with Jesus.

Before we think that this gospel does not particularly concern us because we do not see ourselves as numbered among the rich, we should listen to what Jesus is really saying.

He touched on the one thing that the man was not ready to give up - his money and all that it brought. But, if we are honest, we will admit that we all have some things we would be very slow to let go of. Things we would not like God to ask us to give up.

It might be a good exercise today for us to ask ourselves what would be the most difficult thing for us to give up if Jesus asked us to do so. It might be some thing we own like our house, or it might be a relationship, or our job, or our health. Whatever it is, it could be coming between us and our total following of Jesus. Do the things we own really own us?

Why not ask for the strength to be ready, if called on, to give it up? Only then do we know that we are truly free and truly followers of Jesus.

One final point. This story has been used in the past as an example of someone getting a special ‘vocation’. According to this view, all are expected to keep the commandments but only some are invited to follow a ‘counsel’, such as living a life of ‘poverty’, as members of religious institutes do. It would be quite wrong to see Jesus here suggesting two levels of living the Christian life. What is said here applies to every person who wants to follow Christ. All the baptised are called to the same level of service although there are different ways of doing this.

Week 20 | Tuesday

Ezek 28:1-10

The message of the reading is very clear and as relevant now as it was then.

It is not fully clear whether Ezekiel is personally attacking King Ittobaal, ruler of Tyre at the time, or the whole city.

Tyre was a Phoenician city on the coast of the Mediterranean in what is now Lebanon. The Phoenicians were famous in ancient times as traders and for their skill in seafaring. Tyre (and/or its king) is being attacked for placing itself on the same level as God.

It bases this claim on its wisdom. “Oh yes, you are wiser than Daniel,” says the prophet rather mockingly. This claimed wisdom was, it was believed, the source of the city’s enormous wealth and power. Daniel, like Solomon, was a byword for wisdom in the Old Testament. Not so much the Daniel who is the hero of Daniel 1-12 but rather the Daniel of chapter 13, who solved the case of the alleged adultery of Susanna.

However, the prophet says, with growing wealth and power has come increasing pride and arrogance, a sense of omnipotence. The empty base of this sense of security will soon be shattered when the city is attacked by foreigners who are even more powerful - referring to the Babylonians. They will bring death and destruction. Then, what will become of the claims to divine power?

“No,” says God through his prophet, “you are a man and not a god”, helpless in the clutches of their murderers. They will die the same death as the “uncircumcised”, the most uncivilised of barbarians. (The Phoenicians, like the Israelites and the Egyptians, practised circumcision.)

Times and attitudes have not changed very much. There are still people in our own time and in our own society who believe that a high level of education, wealth and power give a kind of invincibility. It includes those who have great such wealth and power and those who struggle all their lives to get some of it. With money, anything can be bought; everyone has his price.

Yet, the lives of all, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, powerful and marginalised, can all be snuffed out in the twinkling of an eye. But our destiny is in Other hands and the sooner we realise that the better for our happiness and peace of mind.

Matthew 19:23-30

After hearing the sad story of the rich young man who could not accept his invitation to be a disciple, Jesus gives some comments on the effects of wealth. It is next to impossible for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God, says Jesus. It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. (It is said that Jesus was referring to a narrow entrance in the city wall of Jerusalem called the ‘eye of the needle’. In either case, Jesus is indicating something which is extremely difficult, in fact, next to impossible.)

Some of us may feel slightly uncomfortable about this. Even if we are not rich ourselves, we might like to see our children get rich some day or we admire people who have, by their hard work, become wealthy. What is wrong with having a lot of money which one has earned by the one’s own sweat and labour?

What does the Gospel mean by being rich? To be rich here means to have a large surplus of money and possessions while around one are people who do not have what they need to live a life of dignity. How can I continue to hold on to “my” possessions when such a situation prevails? How can I claim to belong to the kingdom, the reign of God, which is a kingdom of love and justice? “I was hungry and thirsty and sick and in prison” and you did not give me to eat or drink, you did not visit me or show any compassion. Instead, you piled up all that money in the bank or on the stock exchange or you splurged it on BMWs and fancy restaurants and expensive clothes.

To be rich in the Gospel means refusing to share what you have with those who have not. As long as you behave like that, you cannot be eligible for the Kingdom. It really is like trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle. There is a radical incompatibility.

The disciples were quite amazed at Jesus’ words. They were thinking along lines traditional to their culture and their religion. Wealth was a sign of God’s blessings; poverty and sickness a sign of his punishment. But Jesus is turning their traditions on their head.

It was something the young man could not understand either. He was under the impression that his wealth was a grace, a sign of God’s favour. The idea of giving alms was to be highly commended but to share his wealth with the poor and create a more just playing field was something for which he felt no obligation and which made no sense.

Then Peter, the optimist, begins to see the bright side. “What about us? We have left everything and followed you.” Jesus gives a twofold reply.

As the leaders of the new community and people who have generously put their whole security in Jesus, his disciples will be especially rewarded. And indeed everyone who leaves family and goods for Jesus’ sake will be rewarded many times over with father, mother, brothers, sisters, goods. This is not just a pie-in-the-sky promise. It is one that can be realised and, in many parts of the world, is being realised. When everyone works for the good of the other, everyone benefits.

The wealth-is-good world believes that it is every man for himself. There is only a limited amount of the cake and it is up to each one to get as big a piece as he can. Too bad about the losers.

In the world of Jesus, everyone gets because everyone gives; because everyone gives, everyone receives. It is not a ‘gimme’ world; it is a reaching out to others world. And when everyone reaches out, everyone is benefiting. In such a world, I do not have to worry about a roof over my head, or about brothers and sisters, or property or security. It is the realisation of “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” It is where love and justice meet. For too many people in our world, there is neither love nor justice.

If the rich man had liberated himself from his wealth and shared it with the poor and become a follower of Jesus in the new community, he might never have been rich again but he would have had all his needs attended to.

Week 20 | Wednesday

Ezek 34:1-11

A powerful passage whose meaning extends far beyond those to whom it was originally addressed. The Jerusalem Bible comments:

The image of the king-shepherd is deeply rooted in Eastern literary tradition. Jeremiah used it of the kings of Israel to rebuke their slackness in office and to proclaim that God would give his people new shepherds who would pasture them with integrity and from these shepherds would come a ‘Branch’, i.e., the Messiah. Ezekiel takes up the theme from Jeremiah, later to be resumed in Zechariah. For their wickedness he rebukes the shepherds, here the kings and lay leaders of the people. Yahweh will take from them the flock they have ill-treated and himself become the shepherd of his people. This is, in effect, the proclamation of a theocracy [as existed before the era of the kings] and, in point of fact, the monarchy was not restored after the return from exile. But the time was to come when Yahweh would give his people a shepherd of his own choice, another David. The terms in which this prince’s reign is described and the name ‘David’ by which he is called suggest a messianic age in which God himself, by means of his Messiah, rules his people in justice and peace.

In this text of Ezekiel we discern the outline of the parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7) but more especially of the allegory of the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-18), which by virtue of its original context here is seen to be a claim to messiahship on the part of Jesus. The Good Shepherd is later to become one of the earliest themes of Christian iconography” (edited).

Today’s reading confines itself to an attack on the “shepherds” of Israel. Later on, the prophet describes Yahweh himself as a very different kind of shepherd altogether in images which are later taken up by Jesus in the Gospel.

By “shepherds” here the prophet primarily is pointing a finger at the rulers of the people, although prophets and priests are also included. There was no real division between secular and religious rule.

The image of the king as shepherd was common throughout that part of the world. In an earlier chapter, Ezekiel had earlier singled out the princes, priests and prophets for special rebuke (chap. 22). David, of course, had been a shepherd when he was chosen and anointed as king and successor to Saul.

The principal accusation is that the shepherds spend their energies on looking after themselves and neglecting the needs of their sheep. They have enjoyed the milk of the sheep, dressed themselves in their wool and sanctimoniously offered them in religious sacrifices. Per se, of course, sheep are raised precisely for their meat, milk and wool. The crime here is was the mistreatment of their people (their ‘sheep’). The rulers and leaders totally neglected the needs of the sheep. They did not feed them and especially they did nothing to care for the weak and the sick and wounded.

They made no effort go in search of those who had strayed or were lost. “Lost sheep were my people, their shepherds misled them, straggling on the mountains…” says Jeremiah (50:6). In the Gospel Jesus will tell the parable of a God who, as a shepherd, will leave the whole flock and go in search of just one sheep which is lost (Luke 15:4).

Even worse, the sheep were treated with cruelty. The result was that the sheep became scattered far and wide and became the prey of wild animals. This refers to Israel‘s exile and dispersion and their suffering from hostile foreign nations. “No one bothers about them and no one looks for them.”

In view of such a situation, what will the Lord do? He will do two things:

First, he will call his shepherds to account. They pastured themselves but not their sheep so the sheep will be separated from them. They will no longer be shepherds and no longer be in a position to exploit the sheep for their own benefit.

Secondly, God himself will become their shepherd. “I am going to look after my flock myself and keep all of it in view.”

A passage like this gives all of us matter for reflection. It can be applied both to our secular rulers and our religious leaders. In our day there are still too many ‘shepherd-leaders’ who live lives of corrupt luxury while their people wallow in poverty and disease.

In the Church, too, there has been a history of the leadership abusing its position, so that service was replaced by power, simplicity by material comfort, and vocation by privilege. While the more blatant forms of abuse have, thankfully, disappeared there can still be abuse of power and privilege, being served rather than serving.

And to what extent has the leadership in some areas failed to reach out to those on the edge, to those who have scattered and strayed far from the Church? There have been the unfortunate examples of shepherds covering over the wrongdoings of some who were entrusted with shepherding.

We might also ask what proportion of the Church’s energies and concerns are concentrated on the already converted, on maintenance rather than on mission? Here we can include not only bishops, priests and religious but all Christians who regard themselves as “practising”.

‘Shepherding’ is the responsibility of all who are entrusted with the care of others - parents, teachers, medical personnel, social workers… Most of us, in one way or another.

Matthew 20:1-16

Today we have another parable of the Kingdom. And it is not unrelated to the previous story of the rich man. At a first reading we might be strongly inclined to side with the grumblers in the parable. After all, it did not seem at all fair that those who only worked for one hour should get exactly the same as those who had worked from early in the morning and through the heat of the day.

Even though all had agreed to work for a stipulated amount, still in all fairness and decency, one feels that the early comers should have been given more or the latecomers less. However, if we find ourselves talking like this then it shows that our thoughts are human thoughts and not God’s. A little further reflection will make us feel grateful that God works like the employer in the vineyard.

The story seems, as often happens in the Gospel, to reflect the situation of the early Church. The first Christians were all Jews. Before their conversion they had been trying to live according to the requirements of their Jewish faith. They belonged to a people who had thousands of years of religious history, they were God’s own people. Then Gentiles began to be admitted into the community. Some of these people probably came from totally pagan environments. They may have lived very immoral lives and yet, once accepted and baptised, they enjoyed all the privileges of the community. Somehow, it did not seem right.

But this is the justice of God which we need to learn. He gives his love, all of his love, to every person without exception who opens himself to it. It does not matter whether that happens early or late. One reason for that is that that love can never be earned, only accepted. And, as the previous story indicated, the genuine needs of all should be met. The fact that the latecomers were only employed at the last hour does not make their needs any less than those who came earlier. God’s justice is measured by our needs not by mathematical divisions.

What each of the workers received was a symbol of the love of God, who is the vineyard owner. All - early arrivals and latecomers - got exactly the same, the love of their Master and Lord. There are not various degrees of that love. It is always 100 percent. God is Love; he cannot not love and he cannot not love totally. He cannot and will not give more of that love to one than another.

This is indeed something we should be grateful for. Because it can happen - perhaps it has already happened - that I move away from God and his love. I may move very far. But I know that at whatever time I turn back to him, be it at the 11th hour, he is waiting with open arms.

Thank heavens for the justice of God!

Week 20 | Thursday

Ezek 36:23-28

From an oracle on the mountains of Israel a promise that in the end all will be well.

Through his prophet, God expresses his desire that the holiness of his name become evident among all the peoples of the world. It has been profaned by the unbelieving nations but Israel, too, has profaned it in their presence. They have been very poor witnesses to the holiness of Yahweh.

But now “the nations will know that I am the Lord”. This is the ultimate purpose of God’s plans and it is his will that it will be through Israel that the whole world may come to know and acknowledge the true God. We, too, pray for this every time we say “Holy be your name; your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as in heaven” in the Lord’s Prayer.

For this to happen God’s people must be taken from their exile among foreign nations and be brought back to their own land. Here the prophet is speaking of the return of the exiles to Jerusalem.

But he will not stop at simply restoring their homeland. There will also be a spiritual renewal. Yahweh will sprinkle clean water on them to remove all their corruption and purify them from all idolatry.

Further, they will be given a new heart and a new spirit. Their heart of stone will be replaced with a heart of warm, beating flesh. “Flesh” in the Old Testament often is a symbol for weakness and in the New Testament it often represents our sinful nature as a force in opposition to the truly spiritual. Here, however, it is contrasted with stone to indicate a warm-blooded, feeling and teachable heart.

“I will put my spirit in you.” This spirit of God is explained by the Jerusalem Bible as follows:

The spirit (breath) of God, which creates and gives life, lays hold on men to endow them with superhuman power. The characteristic of the messianic age is to be an extraordinary outpouring of the spirit on all, endowing them with special graces. But, more mysteriously, for each receiver the spirit will be the principle of an inward renewal making possible a faithful observance of the laws of God; thus the spirit will be the principle inspiring the new covenant; like life-giving water it will nourish fruits of integrity and holiness, which in turn will guarantee the favour and protection of God for man. This effusion of the spirit will be effected through the Messiah who will be the first recipient of it, to be able to accomplish his saving work. (edited)

The active and effective presence of this new spirit will be manifested by the people’s response, by their observance of God’s law, their carrying out of his will in all things. Then the covenant promise will once again be realised: “You shall be my people and I will be your God.”

This, too, is the ultimate goal of the Church as an instrument of the Kingdom, namely, that the holiness of God’s name be acknowledged by peoples everywhere. For that, we in the Church constantly need a new heart, a heart of flesh, and a new spirit. We need this both corporately and individually.

Let us pray that the community of which we are members and each member of it may experience a constant renewal of heart and spirit. Only then can we be effective instruments to proclaim the Good News to all those who thirst for meaning and a vision in their lives.

Matthew 22:1-14

In our readings we have jumped from chapter 20 to chapter 22 and read another Kingdom parable not unrelated to yesterday’s about the workers in the vineyard.

Yesterday it was a question of resentment at God’s generosity to latecomers in his kingdom. Today it is rather sadness over the Jewish leaders’ refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord. The parable is a kind of potted history and is more like an allegory than a parable.

The king (God) gives a wedding banquet (the happiness of the Messianic age) for his son (Jesus the Messiah). But when he invites people (the Jews) to attend, they refuse to come and make all kinds of excuses. Others actually attack the king’s servants and messengers (the prophets and the early Christian evangelisers).

The king becomes angry and “sent his army to destroy those murderers and burn their city”. Surely a reference to the Roman army under the emperor Titus which sacked and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. The Temple, the heart of Judaism, was also destroyed and plundered and has never since been rebuilt. Today an Islamic mosque stands on the site.

Because the invited guests will not come, the servants (the Jewish disciples of Jesus) are instructed to go out and bring in anyone they can find. “They rounded up everyone they met, bad as well as good.” All are called - both the good and sinful.

The climax of the story at first seems somewhat unfair. People have been pulled in from highways and byways and now one is condemned for not wearing a wedding garment! But the parable has in fact moved to the final judgement. In fact, Matthew may be combining what were two original parables into one.

The wedding garment clearly stands for faith and baptism combined with a lived out commitment to the Gospel, something necessary to be accepted into the eternal happiness of the Kingdom.

As Jesus says at the end, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Many were called and invited to attend the banquet. But more than that was expected of them. They had to answer the call by saying an unqualified Yes to Jesus. Being baptised and having the label ‘Christian’ or ‘Catholic’ is not enough.

We have also to live out in our lives and relationships what we claim to believe in.

Week 20 | Friday

Ezek 37:1-14

A kind of parable of the renewal of Israel whose theme is not unlike that of yesterday’s reading. The prophet gives no indication as to when it was written but it must be dated after 586 BC, the year following the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. God’s people are in exile in distant Babylon. They see no brightness in their future.

In his vision, the prophet is set down by God in a valley full of bones. Such scenes must not have been unknown as the result of battles when the casualties were left behind by fleeing armies to die and rot. As we will see, these bones symbolise Israel’s apparently hopeless condition in exile. They are “quite dried up” to indicate they are long dead and beyond hope of resuscitation. But Ezekiel is now going to receive a message of hope for the future.

There are bones in every direction, as far as the eye can see. They symbolise the whole community of exiles. They are so dry, indicating they are long dead and far beyond any possibility of resuscitation.

Perhaps testing his faith, God asks Ezekiel if they can live again. “Only you know that,” the prophet replies. He is then told to prophesy to them - “Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!” Apart from addressing people, Ezekiel had also addressed inanimate things like mountains and forests and now it is lifeless bones. Through him, Yahweh tells the bones he will bring spirit into them so that they may become living again. The Hebrew word ruah here can mean spirit, breath or wind.

They will once more have tendons, flesh, skin and breath. A listing of four items indicates wholeness and completeness.

As Ezekiel spoke the prophecy, there was a great rattling sound as the bones reformed into whole skeletons and grew sinews and flesh covered by skin. The sound could refer either to the bones coming together or to the active presence of God over them.

But there was as yet no breath, no life. This recalls the two steps by which the man was created in Genesis. He was first formed from the dust of the earth and then received the breath of life. Ezekiel then, on the Lord’s instructions, calls the breath from the four winds to breathe on the dead with the command, “Let them live!” Then all rose to their feet and formed a mighty army.

The Jerusalem Bible comments:

God announces the messianic restoration of Israel after the sufferings of the Exile. But also, by the imagery chosen, he is already preparing minds for the idea of individual resurrection of the body, vaguely perceived in Job and explicitly stated in Daniel. (edited).

Clearly, the risen bones are the restored House of Israel. In exile in Babylon, they had lost all hope and were in the depths of despair. “Our bones are dried up, our hope has gone; we are as good as dead.” That was how they felt separated from their homeland.

Ezekiel is now to tell them that their graves will be opened and they will return to their homeland. The final part of the reading has switched from the image of a battlefield of dead bones to a cemetery of many graves.

As in yesterday’s reading, Yahweh promises to give them his spirit, a spirit of life. “You will live and I shall resettle you on your own soil; and you will know that I, the Lord, have said and done this.”

It is clear from the context that Yahweh is not speaking here of a resurrection from the dead but of the restoration of Israel as a nation.

As we read this dramatic passage, we can transpose its images to our Christian situation. God, through Jesus, is for us too a source of new life. But, through our infidelities, that life can become effectively dead in us. Spiritually, we become dry as dead bones.

Jesus said that he had come precisely to give us new life, life in greater abundance. He made this promise many times in the Gospel and proved it by the new life he gave to so many people by raising them from death, by healing them of incurable diseases or disabilities, by liberating them from the power of evil influences.

We have been given new life in baptism but we need to be constantly renewed in heart and spirit. May the Lord never cease to pour his Spirit into our hearts.

Matthew 22:34-40

Matthew’s gospel is building up to its climax. The continued confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders is leading to the final showdown. It had been described symbolically in the parable we heard yesterday.

This parable is followed in Matthew by three encounters where Jesus’ opponents try to wrongfoot him by showing him to be in opposition to the Law. There is the famous scene where he is asked whether it is right to pay tribute to Caesar or not. The question is put in such a way that, no matter what answer he gives, he will say the wrong thing. This is followed by the Saduccees, who did not believe in the after life, bringing up what they thought was an insoluble problem for those who did believe in the resurrection of the dead.

In both cases, Jesus dealt expeditiously with his questioners and left them with no comeback.

Today we read of a third encounter. The Pharisees, who were very pleased that the Sadducees had been silenced by Jesus, now had their own challenge for him. “Which is the greatest commandment of the Law?” they asked him. This was a much-discussed question among the experts. There were more than 600 laws and it was common to ask which ones were of greater importance than others.

Jesus responds very quickly, not by using his own words but quoting from the Books of the Law themselves. And his answer contains not one but two laws:

a. You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul. This is from Deuteronomy 6:5, and

b. You must love your neighbour as yourself. This is from Leviticus 19:18.

They both have the word ‘love’ in common. It is important to be aware that the word translated ‘love’ here is the verb agapeo (‘agapew), from which we get agape (‘agaph) and not phileo (filew). Agape can be described as an intense desire for the good or the well-being of the other. Philia, on the other hand, implies friendship and affection. We are not asked to have affection for each other, only to work for the good of the other, no matter what that person is like.

And, from the Gospel (e.g. Matthew 25) we know that not only are these two commandments similar, they are complementary and inseparable. In other words, it is not possible to love God and not love the neighbour and vice versa.

So Jesus is, strictly speaking, answering their question about the “greatest commandment” (singular). The greatest commandment is simultaneously to love God and neighbour. And, in Luke’s gospel, the identity of the “neighbour” will be clearly shown, although it is also in fact clearly indicated later in Matthew 25 (“I was hungry, thirsty... As often as you did it to the least...you did it to me”).

On these two commandments, says Jesus, “hang the whole Law and the Prophets also”, in other words, the whole of the Old Testament teaching. The Law was contained in the Pentateuch, the first five books of our Bible; the Prophets included both the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) but also the twelve minor prophets as well as the so-called ‘former’ prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Also included were the Writings, the Wisdom books.

And Jesus is saying that as long as one is truly loving God and the neighbour, the rest of the Law will take care of itself. And there may even be times when such love will transcend and override the requirements of some laws. No truly loving act can ever be sinful.

Week 20 | Saturday

Ezek 43:1-7

This is our last reading from Ezekiel and also brings to an end our series of readings from the prophets which we have been following since Week 13. On Monday (Week 21) we will return to reading the New Testament.

The message is filled with hope as it describes how God comes back to his Temple after the Exile. It represents the high point of this whole section of Ezekiel. It was a moment for which the Temple had been prepared.

The glory of God is seen approaching from the east. It was from this direction that the prophet had seen God leave his city. In the book of Ezekiel God’s glory is always active. The experience was both heard (”like the roar of rushing waters”) and seen (”the land was radiant with his glory”). God’s visible glory is always described as being very bright. We remember the brightness surround the birth of Jesus in Luke as the angels sang “Glory to God in the highest!”

It reminds Ezekiel, too, of the vision he had seen when Yahweh came to destroy the city (under the agency of Nebuchadnezzar).

As God in his glory enters the city from the east, Ezekiel is lifted up by the Spirit and brought to the inner court of the Temple. With God being nearer, the function of the guiding angel is taken over by the Spirit of God. Ezekiel is transported into the inner court but not into the temple.

And now the Temple is filled with the glory of the Lord as it was when consecrated by Solomon (1 Kings 8:11). Then “Someone” is heard speaking to Ezekiel from the Temple. This “Someone” is Yahweh but out of reverence not named here, preserving an air of awe and mystery.

Yahweh addresses his prophet: “This is the dais of my throne, the step on which I rest my feet. I shall live here among the sons of Israel for ever.” Once again, the covenant promise is renewed. But it is never God who breaks it. His compassion and love are indicated by his readiness to renew it again and again. The final renewal will be the New Covenant made through God’s own Son, pouring out his blood in sacrifice for love of us all.

The glory of the Lord is always ready to enter our lives and make our hearts the temple of his presence. Is he there now? Is he palpably present in our community? Or have we driven him away? But we know that, no matter how often we fall, he still stands at the door and knocks. Will I welcome him in - not just for now but for always?

Matthew 23:1-12

We begin today chapter 23 of Matthew which consists of a severe indictment of the Pharisees and Scribes by Jesus. This is not to be taken as a blanket condemnation of every individual Pharisee and Scribe, because we know that many of them were good people. One outstanding example is Gamaliel who appears in the Acts of the Apostles as a man of justice and integrity. Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night and was involved in Jesus’ burial, was also a Pharisee.

The passage certainly reflects some of the conflicts which arose between the early Christians (especially those who were Jews themselves) and those Jews who were opposed to the Christian Way, who saw it as a heresy and who often subjected the Christians to verbal and even physical attacks and harassment.

What Jesus is attacking is not so much a particular people as certain attitudes of mind. And these attitudes can be found just as easily within the Christian community of that time and every period since then. We should listen to Jesus’ words, then, directed not so much to abstract “Pharisees and Scribes” but to ourselves. It is for our benefit and reflection that they have been included in the Gospel. The Gospel is written for us and to us; it is not a historical diatribe against certain people in the past.

Jesus first of all emphasises that as people in authority and experts on the subject, the Scribes and Pharisees should be listened to with respect and they should be obeyed when they teach. But Jesus says that in their behaviour their example should not be followed. “Their words are bold but their deeds are few.”

They have no hesitation in drawing up rules which are difficult for people to carry out but they do absolutely nothing to help in their implementation. The Church has not always been without guilt in this kind of thing, even in our own day. Nor have civil legislators or other people in authority, including parents of families or teachers in schools, been without fault.

This is the double standard, where people set the rules which they themselves do not keep: “Do as I say, not as I do” or “You will do it because I tell you to do it.”

Secondly, the Pharisees are attacked because everything they do is to attract attention to themselves. But it is all on the outside. What we call today ‘image’. Their phylacteries were bigger than others’ and their tassels huge. The phylactery was a small box containing some of the central words of the Law. It was worn on the arm or the forehead, a literal interpretation of the exhortation in Exodus (13:9), “[the Law] shall be as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead”. There were four tassels, sewn at each corner of one’s cloak.

The message is clear: “We are better, we are holier.” But it is a sham because it is all on the outside. But when it comes to ‘image’ our contemporary world has nothing to learn from the past.

They also expect special attention to be given to them: the first row in the synagogue, places of honour at banquets, special honorific titles. Sad to say, we have seen this not infrequently among church clerics in our own lifetime. We see it daily among our politicians, business leaders, our media personalities. They are not only given these things; they soon expect them as a right. It is the VIP syndrome and often it is pathetic: the private jet, the executive lounge in the airport, the special table in the restaurant, the limousine from the hotel...

Even ordinary people become slaves of the image: the brand label on the clothes they wear, the places where they live, the cars they drive, and all the other consumer baubles with which they surround themselves. None of these things, says Jesus, makes a person great.

The greatest is the one who serves, that is, the person who uses his or her gifts for the benefit of others, whose whole life is dedicated to making this world a better place for others to live in. A person to whom such trappings are totally irrelevant.

Week 21 | Monday

2 Thess 1:1-5, 11-12

After eight weeks reading from the Old Testament prophets, we return today to the New Testament. For the next three days we will be reading from the Second Letter of Paul to the Christians at Thessalonika in northern Greece.

Today we begin the first of three readings from the Second Letter to the Thessalonians.

Although this letter is usually ascribed to Paul, there are serious doubts about him being its real author or that it was actually directed to the Christians of Thessalonika, a city in Macedonia, north of Greece. Nevertheless, it has always been a part of the recognised canon and we can read it with confidence as speaking God’s word to us.

The letter opens traditionally with the names of its claimed authors: Paul, with two of his helpers, Silvanus and Timothy, and its adressee, the Christian community, the church, in Thessalonika.

There follows a Christian prayer of grace, peace and thanksgiving to God the Father and the Lord Jesus.

The writers are full of gratitude to God because of the marvellous growth of faith and mutual love among the Thessalonian Christians, even though they are aware of some shortcomings also.

The Thessalonians are congratulated for standing out among the churches for their perseverance in spite of the persecutions and troubles they have had to face. This was a source of special pride for Paul and the other founders of this church and they were not ashamed to boast of it. Paul seems to imply that it was somewhat unusual for the founders of a church to boast about this, though others might do so. However, the Thessalonians were so outstanding in this regard that Paul departed from his normal practice.

It shows that God, in allowing them to go through these trials, was right. He gave them the resources they needed and they rose to the occasion and proved themselves “worthy of the kingdom of God”. He provided strength to endure and this in turn produced spiritual and moral character. Their sufferings are precisely for the promotion of the Kingdom as they give faithful witness to Jesus and the Gospel.

The passage ends with a lovely prayer that God will fulfil the Thessalonians’ “desires for goodness” and bring to completion all that they have been doing through faith in Christ. God initiates every good purpose and every act prompted by faith; Paul prays accordingly that he will bring these to fulfilment.

“We pray…that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you.” In ancient times one’s name was often more than a personal label; it summed up what a person was. Paul is praying that the name, that is, the person of the Lord Jesus will be given glory in them and they in him through the love of God and the Lord Jesus poured into their hearts.

As we read this passage we may reflect on a number of things:

a. Can it be said that our faith and mutual love, individually and collectively, are constantly growing?

b. How do we behave and respond when our Christian faith is challenged, attacked or rubbished? Do we stand up or do we go into hiding? Do we hit back or pray for those who attack us?

c. Can we see that the trials and setbacks of life are ways by which God is challenging the depth of our faith and calling for a deeper response of love and service?

Matthew 23:13-22

We continue with the attack of Jesus on the mentality of the Scribes and Pharisees, keeping in mind as we mentioned last Saturday that, first, we are dealing more with a state of mind than a blanket condemnation of a whole group of people, and, secondly, that the words are mainly to be heard as providing reflection for our own Christian communities and the way we behave.

Today and for the following two days we read of the seven ‘Woes’ that Jesus hurls against corrupt religious leaders. We have seen already how the number seven is a favourite of Matthew.

The Seven Woes are:

1. You shut up the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces… (v.13)

[You devour the property of widows... (a verse not included in some texts). (v.14)]

2. You travel over land and sea to make a single convert… (v.15)

3. You say, if a man swears by the Temple it has no force… (vv.16-22)

4. You pay your tithe of mint and dill… (vv.23-24)

5. You clean the outside of cup and dish… (vv.25-26)

6. You are like whitewashed tombs… (vv.27-28)

7. You build the sepulchres of the prophets… (vv.29-32)

Today we read the first three Woes.

1, You shut up the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces…v.13

[You devour the property of widows... (not included in some texts). (v.14)]

Jesus accuses the leaders of closing the entrance to the Kingdom, preventing others from going in and not going in themselves either. On the one hand, this can be a reference to their rejection of Jesus who was himself the embodiment of the Kingdom, was preaching the Kingdom and who, by his presence, had made the Kingdom accessible to all who came to him. On the other, it can also mean that they made the observance of the Law impossibly difficult by their complex interpretations of what was and was not allowed.

Whether we are parents, or teachers, or priests or religious, we can also by our behaviour both block people’s access to Jesus and be far from him ourselves also.

Included here is verse 14, left out of some texts, where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of saying long prayers but not hesitating to take money (for the Temple, of course) from widows, the poorest of the poor. Considering that widows were among the most destitute and insecure of people in Jewish society, this was exploitation of the most base kind. A comparison in our own day would be with the ways in which some “televangelists” have been known to rake in money from poor and gullible people who should be receiving rather than giving.

2, You travel over land and sea to make a single convert… (v.15)

While they try to prevent people approaching Jesus, they themselves zealously go to great lengths to make even a single convert, only to make that person even worse than themselves. They do this by corrupting them with false ideas of what true religion is. They fill them ideas about ritual purification and thus create a false sense of security about what really brings about salvation. At this time Jewish proselytisation was very active in the Greek and Roman world.

Parallels can be found in our own days among Christian groups.

3, You say, if a man swears by the Temple it has no force… (vv.16-22)

Here Jesus’ attack is directed at the leaders’ greed and their corruption of religion for material gain. They persuade people to swear by the gold of the temple and make them pay. People are told not to swear by the altar but by the gift they have put there. Which is more holy, Jesus asks, the temple or the gold which the temple makes holy, the altar or the gift which the altar sanctifies? Again, in the name of holiness, the Pharisee-types are exploiting the poor.

Daily we see the abuse of authority and power, whether in the Church, in government, in business leading to all kinds of greed and corruption which undermines the very fabric of societies. Positions of service are turned into instruments of personal gain, often at the expense of the weakest and the most needy. Countries which long ago should have become rich and prosperous and provided with a high quality of life for their people are bankrupt, in every sense of the word, while a small elite live lives of shameless luxury.

The Church, too, can find itself over-concerned with matters of money at the expense of its pastoral mission. A diocese, a parish, a bishop or priest who is rich in a world of poverty and need is a major stumbling block to the hearing of the Gospel.

Week 21 | Tuesday

2 Thess 2:1-3, 14-16

The coming of the Lord and the prelude to it.

In the First Letter to the Thessalonians (the earliest extant letter of Paul that we have) Paul seemed to be saying that the second and final coming of the Lord was imminent although he was careful not to specify a particular time.

Apparently replying to further questions, Paul (or the actual author) in this second letter does not repeat all that was said in the first letter about what would happen to the living and the dead. What is being written here is supplementary to Paul’s oral teaching and the instructions contained in the earlier letter. All he is concerned with is to emphasise that the coming is not imminent, and that it cannot take place till certain specific signs have preceded it.

Although the Second Coming is a major theme of this letter, Paul (or the author of the letter) warns the Christians not to “be shaken out of their minds” or alarmed by predictions (false prophecies) or rumours or spurious letters supposed to have come from him suggesting that the “day of the Lord” is already on them.

“Shaken out of their minds” translates a verb often used of a ship adrift from its moorings and suggests a lack of stability. Here it suggests a kind of panic at the supposed imminence of the Lord’s coming. The Christians are not to be deceived by such false alarms.

The expression “the day of the Lord” comes originally from the prophet Amos (5:18). In the Old Testament it is a time when God will come and intervene with judgement and/or blessing. In the New Testament the thought of judgement continues, but it is also the ‘day of redemption’, the ‘day of God’, or of Christ, and the ‘last day‘, the ‘great day’ or simply ‘the day‘. It is the climax of all things. There will be some preliminary signs but the coming will be as unexpected as that of “a thief in the night”.

In the second and final part of the reading, the author reminds the Christians to focus on the Gospel which has been preached to them and which has as its final purpose a sharing in the glory of Jesus Christ as Lord.

Jesus “has called you through our gospel”. “Our” gospel, that is, the gospel preached by Paul, Silas and Timothy and that they themselves had received by faith. It is, of course, first of all God the Father’s because it originates from him, and Christ’s because it springs from his sacrificial death.

Let them forget about worrying when this sharing in glory will actually take place and concentrate on living out the “traditions”, i.e., the teachings which they had received from Paul and the other apostles, either orally or in writing. This refers to what Paul taught them when he was in Thessalonika. What he had written to them since he returned from there, include, in the message of the Good News, the principles on which a Christian should lead his life.

Until the New Testament took its final form, essential Christian teaching was passed on in the “traditions” (a word which comes from the Latin ‘to hand on‘ or ‘hand over’), just as rabbinic law was and it could be either oral or written. The four gospels which we have now are basically built up from such written and oral ‘traditions’.

The passage ends with a lovely Pauline prayer, very similar to one in the same place in the first letter and which also includes the words ‘encourage’ and ‘strengthen’ (1 Thess 3:11-13). The prayer is for inner strength that will produce results in both action and speech.

It is a prayer we could say often for each other and for all those we know and love (or find it difficult to love):

May our Lord Jesus Christ himself,
and God our Father who has given us his love
and, through his grace, such inexhaustible comfort
and such sure hope,
comfort you and strengthen you
in everything good that you do or say.

At every age in the Church’s history, including our own, there are people who are convinced that the end of the world is “nigh” and that Christ is coming in Judgement at any moment. Certain key periods, such as the end of a century or, even more, the end of a millennium, produces a veritable rash of such warnings. So far, they have never proved accurate.

We would be better off listening to the advice of today’s letter and focus our energies on living out the Gospel each day in truth and love. This is the best possible preparation we can make for that time which will come “like a thief in the night”.

And, as has been said more than once in these reflections, a much more realistic end for us to consider is that of our own life than that of the universe or our planet. In either case, however, the recommended advice is the same: live the Gospel day in and day out and the rest will take care of itself.

Matthew 23:23-26

We continue reading the ‘Seven Woe’; today’s reading contains the fourth and fifth.

4, You pay your tithe of mint and dill… (vv.23-24)In continuing his attack on Pharisaism, Jesus touches on two issues which are not at all irrelevant to our Christian living today. First, he attacks the mentality of those who are sticklers for tiny details of ritual or doctrine while ignoring the fundamental issues of justice, compassion and good faith. The Mosaic Law levied a tithe on agricultural produce. Some rabbis scrupulously applied the law to the most insignificant of plants.

A strict Pharisee too would carefully filter his drinking water in case he might swallow a small insect, which would be regarded as unclean. But, in being so careful of such minutiae, he might well overlook matters of much deeper importance. Jesus is not criticising a conscientious carrying out of rules and regulations but it is the attitude of hypocritical moral superiority which he attacks.

One can meet Catholics too who tie themselves in knots trying to observe the most petty regulations and can end up becoming the prisoner of scruples. What is more, they can be highly critical of others whom they regard as ‘lax’. People who are more worried about not having observed a full 60 minutes of fast before Communion than focusing on what the wider implications of participating in the Eucharist really mean.

5, You clean the outside of cup and dish… (vv.25-26)The second point that Jesus makes is to criticise those who concentrate on the tiniest details of external behaviour while totally ignoring the inner spirit.

There are certain Christians who speak and write at length about all the things that are not being done right in the Catholic Church, in its liturgy and who claim for themselves a level of doctrinal and moral orthodoxy to which even Rome does not attain. Sometimes even the Pope does not come up to their expectations.

What is striking about these people is the almost total absence of a sense of love and compassion in their writings and actions. They are only interested in “truth” and “orthodoxy” as if these things could exist outside of the nitty-gritty of human living. They can be more concerned about the tiniest rubrical details of the liturgy than about the Eucharist as truly a sacrament of a loving community prayerfully centred on the Person of Christ.

On the outside, the behaviour is impeccable but inside there is a total lack of a true Gospel spirit, the spirit of love and integrity, of compassion and a sense of justice for all. Instead, there can be a heart full of self-righteousness, criticism, anger, resentment, contempt for those who do not think the same, all cloaked in this outer veneer of moral and ritual rectitude.

The two attitudes are closely related and all of us can be touched by them in one degree or another. Let him or her who has never criticised another fellow-Christian cast the first stone!

Week 21 | Wednesday

2 Thess 3:6-10, 16-18

We have our final reading today from 2 Thessalonians. It is a short work with only three chapters. The teaching is a warning against people who do not work and do not pull their weight in the community.

It seems that this was partly related to the expectation of the Lord’s imminent second coming among the very early Christians. They believed that Jesus would return while they were still alive. As time passed, this belief receded and is reflected in the later books of the New Testament.

If the end of the world was so near, what was the point in killing oneself working? Paul (or the anonymous author) will have none of that and Paul’s own behaviour is proposed as an example to follow.

Next to the question of the Second Coming, he pays more attention to this related issue than anything else. It seems to have worsened since the earlier letter. The Christians are even told to keep away from, to have nothing to do with those who will not work. The word Paul uses is strong, an authoritative word with a military ring about it. This would not imply a complete separation from people who were in effect brothers and sisters in Christ but rather a total refusal to identify with their behaviour. Idleness is sinful and disruptive but those guilty of it are still brothers. Such behaviour was not at all in accordance with the “traditions” that had been handed on to them.

Instead, they are called on to imitate Paul, to make him their model. The Jerusalem Bible comments:

By imitating Paul, Christians will be imitating Christ, who is himself the one that Paul is imitating. Christians must also imitate God, and they must imitate each other. Behind this community of life is the idea of a model of doctrine, that has been received by tradition. The leaders who transmit the doctrine must themselves be ‘models’, whose faith and life are to be imitated (edited).

The New International Version makes this comment:

The order in Christian imitation is:

(1) Believers in Macedonia and Achaia imitated the Thessalonians, just as the Thessalonians imitated the churches in Judea;

(2) the Thessalonians imitated Paul, just as the Corinthians did and just as all believers were to imitate their leaders;

(3) Paul imitated Christ as did the Thessalonians;

(4) all were to imitate God (edited).

In case of any misunderstanding, Paul spells out just what he means. Whenever he was with the Thessalonians, he always worked to support himself and even paid for the food that he was offered. To “eat…food” is a Hebraic term for ‘making a living’. Paul, of course, does not say he never accepted hospitality (in fact, he says below that it is the missionary’s right) but that he did not depend on others for his general living. He and his companions worked hard “in toil and drudgery” so as not to be a burden on any community. (We know from elsewhere that Paul was a tent-maker.)

They did this, not because they had no right to expect some material support from those to whom they were preaching, but because they wanted to set a good example which they expected the Thessalonians to follow.

It is another example of Paul setting aside a principle [in this case, the community’s duty to support the missionary] for something he believed was more important [that each one pull their weight in the community]. (Another example is his refraining from eating certain foods which the scrupulous might regard as “unclean” or in having Timothy, who had a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, circumcised, even though he himself did not believe in the necessity of circumcision.)

Paul had even laid down a ruling with them that food was not to be given to those who refused to work. There was apparently a secular proverb in the form, “He who does not work does not eat”. Paul sets it down as a rule to be followed in the community. He clearly had no time for spongers and social parasites, however exalted their motives.

The reading ends with the final blessing of the letter, a prayer of blessing for peace “all the time and in every way”.

He then signs off in his own handwriting. Although he normally dictated his letters (there are hints his sight was poor – was this the “thorn in the flesh” he speaks about in 2 Cor 12?), he sometimes added a handwritten signature as a sign of the letter’s genuineness. Here he tells us that this practice was his distinguishing mark.

And, although he had had words of criticisms for his readers, he concludes with a typical prayer that the loving grace of the Lord Jesus be with them all.

We could perhaps reflect today on our attitudes towards work. On the one hand, there are the ‘workaholics’, those who are compulsive workers, irrespective of the need to do what they are doing or of the rewards it produces. There are others who work very hard simply to earn more and more, often way beyond the needs of a modestly decent standard of living.

In both cases, other personal, family and social needs are neglected and the individual him/herself can suffer. Paul clearly would not approve of this.

On the other hand, there are those who have a strong aversion to work and who will do all they can to live off others, whether that be their family, friends or the state. Such people can become experts at “milking” social welfare in its various forms. Paul would not approve of them either.

There are others who work hard and make significant contributions to society but whose work cannot always be quantified in monetary or economic terms. An obvious example is the full-time mother. The idea that mothers with young children should also be full-time salary earners or else that they should be paid for the work they do at home seems to confuse the idea that work is primarily for service and not for remuneration.

Many of those who work for churches or other social service organisations come in this category too. They all deserve that their needs (not necessarily all their ‘wants’) be provided by the wider community. Surely Paul would give his approval here.

So I need to look at my life and see whether, given my various resources, I make an appropriate contribution to my society:

Do I work too much?

Do I work enough?

Do I work as a service to others? Is that how I see the job or profession I am in?

Do I work only for the material reward?

Am I sufficiently and appropriately remunerated for the work I do?

Matthew 23:27-32

We come today to the last two of the seven ‘Woes’ which Jesus throws against pharisaism. Again it is an attack on hypocrisy and he gives two examples.

6, You are like whitewashed tombs… (vv.27-28)

On the one hand he compares the Pharisees to “whited sepulchres”, a phrase (like many others) that has found its way into everyday English through the King James version. In other words, they are like the tombs that people in Palestine could often see spotlessly clean in their whitewashed stones but which inside were full of the decaying and rotting bodies of the dead. One reason they were whitewashed was because a person who unwittingly stepped on a grave became ritually unclean. Whitewashing made them more visible, especially in the dark.

The Pharisees put on an external show of religious perfection down to the tiniest detail but inside their hearts and minds were full of pride and hatred and contempt for their fellow-men. It was epitomised in the story that Jesus told of the Pharisee and the tax collector who went to the temple to pray. “I thank you, Lord, that I am not like the rest of men, extortionists, unjust, adulterers or even like this tax collector here,” was the sanctimonious prayer of the Pharisee. It was, of course, to some extent true but it closed his mind to a different kind of sin altogether - his pride and imagined self-sufficiency. As Jesus will say in another place, the greatest sin of the pharisaical is their sheer blindness, the inability to see themselves for what they really are.

This, I suppose, is the most dangerous sin of the pious in any age and yet the one least likely to be confessed and repented of. It can happen to any of us.

7, You build the sepulchres of the prophets… (vv.29-32)

Mention of tombs leads Jesus to comment on the Pharisees’ pride over the tombs they have built in memory of the prophets and other holy people. They congratulate themselves that, if they had been present, they would never have partaken in the actions which brought persecution and death to the prophets. Yet here is Jesus, the prophet of all prophets, whom they are preparing to kill. In the last verse of our reading, Jesus tells them to go ahead and complete the murdering of the prophets, referring to what is going to happen to himself. Another classic example of the blindness of the self-righteous.

The more committed we are to our Christian faith and to the behaviour that it expects, the greater the danger that we, too, can fall into the same trap and see ourselves on a higher level than others whose behaviour we deplore and perhaps even attack. Whole groups of such people have been appearing in recent years, people who claim to know the Church better than the Pope, who deplore the “heresies” of the Second Vatican Council, who close themselves off into elitist groups afraid of being contaminated not only by the “world” but even by other Catholics!

Week 21 | Thursday

1 Cor 1:1-9

Today we begin reading from the First Letter of Paul to the Christians in the southern Greek city of Corinth. Paul had gone there after his dismal failure with the sophisticated citizens of Athens. Here, in a city of very mixed population and with not a terribly good reputation for its morals, he did very much better. This letter is one of the most important documents of the New Testament and contains some of Paul’s most central teaching. So we will be staying with this letter up to the end of Week 24 – three and a half weeks altogether.

As is usual in letters of the period, Paul begins by identifying himself and numbers himself among the apostles called by God. In its original meaning ‘apostle’ means ‘someone who is sent on a mission or with a message to communicate’. In the New Testament the word can be use in a general sense about someone who is sent on a mission (Greek verb, apostello, ’apostellw). More particularly it is used of the Twelve we meet in the gospels but was also applied later to Paul (who calls himself “the least of the Apostles”). The title is also sometimes given to a wider group including Barnabas, James “the brother of the Lord” and possibly Andronicus and Junias, whom we meet in the Letter to the Romans.

Paul uses the title of himself in most of his letters to affirm his authority as a messenger of Christ, an authority that was sometimes challenged. He reinforces his claim here by adding “by the will of God”. In other words, he is not self-appointed.

The greeting also contains the name of Sosthenes, who may possibly be the synagogue ruler who was attacked by his fellow-Jews in Corinth when their complaint against Paul was rejected by Gallio, the pro-consul of the local province of Achaia. (The story occurs in Acts 18 and also in the First Reading of Friday in the 6th week of Easter.) If it is the same person, then he must have become a Christian either while Paul was preaching in Corinth or during the ministry of Apollos.

Paul addresses his letter to the “church of God in Corinth”. “Church of God” is one of his favourite expressions and used only by him. It refers to the community of Christians gathered together, often in one of their homes. Its Old Testament counterpart is “assembly (or community) of the Lord”. At this stage there is no formal building or institutional structure.

He also calls them a people “sanctified”, made holy in Christ. This refers not so much to their behaviour – for, as Paul will not hesitate to point out, they had many faults – but because they had been called, with Christians in other churches, to be a people set apart, distinguished by their commitment to the Way of Christ. The word hagios (‘agios), translated ‘holy’, means ‘set apart’ and the “saints” is a term used of all Christians in Paul’s letters and not just those outstanding in virtue.

The opening greeting ends with a blessing and prayer for the “grace and peace” of God the Father and the Lord Jesus, a greeting we now use in our Eucharistic liturgy.

“Grace” in Greek is charis (caris) and implies God’s love given gratuitously and not because it is deserved. No matter how good we are, God is never indebted to us. The first initiative of love always comes from God, never from us nor can we ever do anything to earn it. It is always there first waiting to be accepted by us.

The letter now properly begins with Paul uttering words of thanks for all the testimonies of God’s love, his “grace”, that have been showered on the Corinthians in Christ Jesus. He is especially thankful for the gifts of “speech and knowledge”, exemplified in their preachers and teachers. These are special gifts of the Spirit (mentioned later on among other gifts). ‘Speech’ is the gift of being able to proclaim the Gospel effectively. ‘Knowledge’ implies a deep understanding of the Gospel message and not just facts about the message.

The “witness to Christ”, which Paul gave to them, has not been at all in vain; on the contrary, it has clearly been confirmed by the gifts of the Spirit of Jesus which are evident among them. Those gifts of the Spirit enable them to serve the body of Christ, which is the Church, until the time when the Lord Jesus will be revealed at the end of time, the time of his final coming. Paul will speak at greater length about these gifts in chaps. 12-14.

According to those chapters, a spiritual gift is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit enabling one to minister to the needs of Christ’s body, the church. The gifts are not intended for oneself but to enable one to respond to the community’s needs. There are different gifts for different needs. (Notice that Jesus’ final coming is no longer seen as imminent, as in the Letter we read earlier in the week.)

They will need these gifts as they wait for the full revelation of Jesus Christ, when the hidden plans of God are to be made known. Then Christ will reveal himself at the end of time, the time of his parousia and his Appearing. Before this, the “Man of Sin” will have ‘revealed’ himself, only to be destroyed by Christ (2 Thess 2:3-8).

And it is God who will give them the help they need to remain “steady and without blame” until “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” when he will return to take all his own to himself. By God calling them, they are united in a special way with Jesus Christ. (The ‘day of the Lord’ and its various forms was mentioned in our reading on Tuesday.)

And, he says in conclusion, “our God is faithful”. He is a God who always keeps his promises. His love is unchanging no matter what we may do. And he is the One who has called us into fellowship with him through Jesus Christ, his Son and our Lord.

Paul will have many criticisms to make of the Corinthians in the course of his letter but for now he begins with words of thanks for all the genuine good that he sees among them.

We can so easily be aware of the shortcomings of individuals and groups inside and outside the Church and we are not slow to express our views when we get together with others to gossip. But it is important for us to be able to see the good in every person, in groups of people and even in ourselves.

Let us always begin by being thankful for our blessings, for all the good things that we see in ourselves and all those around us. It is sad when we are not able to give genuine words of praise and appreciation.

And let us especially today reflect on the graces that God has poured into our own lives. Let us, on the one hand, thank him sincerely for them and, on the other, ask ourselves how we have used them for his love and service and the love and service of our brothers and sisters. After all, that is why they were given to us in the first place. (We will see more about that later in this letter.)

Matthew 24:42-51

We enter the final phase of our readings from Matthew which will conclude on Saturday of this week. We will see selected readings from chapters 24 and 25 which form what is called the “Eschatological Discourse”. This is the fifth and final discourse, each of which is a collection of the teachings of Jesus and which are a feature of Matthew’s gospel. This discourse is concerned with the end of all things and the second and final coming of Christ to bring all things together.

The earlier part of chap 24 includes the foretelling of the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which for the Jews of the time (including those who had converted to Christianity) must have seemed like the end of the world (just as, later on, the collapse of the Roman Empire seemed to be the end of the world for St Augustine of Hippo and his contemporaries).

The early Christians had expected to see the Second Coming in their lifetime and the sacking of Jerusalem and the sacrilegious destruction of the Temple must have seemed the certain signs of the eschaton. But, by the time Matthew’s gospel came into circulation, that was already at least 15 years in the past. The end, although certain to happen, did not seem any more quite so imminent.

Matthew includes as part of the discourse a number of parousia (final coming) parables. Following a pattern we have seen in other parts of this gospel, they are seven in number. We have two short ones in today’s reading. Both consist of an exhortation for readiness to welcome the final coming of the Lord.

In the first we should be as alert in watching for the coming of the Lord as a householder would be to prevent his house being broken into and robbed. Like a thief, Jesus will come when we least expect him.

In the second parable, Jesus compares us to a servant who has been put in charge of the house while the master is away. This may refer to the community leaders in Matthew’s church and, by extension, to leaders of communities everywhere. It will be well for that servant when the master unexpectedly returns and finds his servant diligently doing his job. Readiness is measured by people consistently carrying out their responsibilities. On the other hand, the servant may think that there is no sign of the master (who had been expected to come earlier) and goes about beating up the other servants and leading a debauched life. It will be too bad for that servant when the master does suddenly appear on the scene.

The lesson is clear. Many of the Christians, who had expected the Lord to come soon, now see no sign of him and begin to backslide in the living of their Christian faith. We can be tempted to do the same thing. “Let’s have a good (that is, a morally bad) time now and we can convert later.” It is not a very wise policy. In the long run, the really good life, that is, a life based on

truth and integrity, on love and compassion and sharing, will always be better than one based on phoniness, on selfishness, greed, hedonism and immediate gratification of every pleasure.

And the conversion day may never come or the chance to turn back to him who is the Way, Truth and Life. The wisest ones are those who consistently try to seek and serve their Lord at every moment of every day. They find happiness now and Jesus will not be a stranger when he comes to call them to himself.

They are the ones who are both faithful and prudent.

Week 21 | Friday

1 Cor 1:17-25

The distinction between true and false wisdom. In this reading Paul presents us with one of the most central concepts of his teaching and indeed of our Christian faith. He begins by saying that Christ had not sent him to baptise. In so speaking, he is not in any way minimising baptism. What he is asserting that his special calling was to proclaim the Gospel. It was for others to establish Christian communities after he had gone to preach the Message in another mission field. Peter, too, asked others to baptise the Gentile Cornelius and his household after they were received into the community (Acts 10:48).

Today’s passage focuses on the essence of our faith, which transcends all human divisions - a message just as relevant now as it was then. What he says arises out his displeasure with factions which were forming in the Corinthian communities. Some saying they were for Paul, others for Apollos, or Cephas (Peter), or even Christ. Paul emphasises that they are all, whoever baptised them, one in Christ. It was Christ and Christ alone who died for them and saved them. Paul’s particular role or charism was to proclaim the Gospel mainly to new communities; he was a founder of churches and communities and so he kept moving from place to place. The other church ministries were left to others to carry out. It is a good example of the diversity of gifts which he will speak about later on.

Further, his role was to preach the Cross of Christ but not with an orator’s eloquence which might rob the Cross of its real power. Oratory was a highly esteemed talent in those days, especially among the Greeks and Romans, but Paul makes no claim to it and for that he is glad. Paul’s mission was not to couch the Gospel in the language of the trained orator, who had studied the techniques of influencing people by persuasive arguments. What Paul shares is not human wisdom but the wisdom of God. The strength of the message is not in how it is delivered but in its content.

The Cross will speak for itself and does not need the persuasive language of the orator. The message of the Cross is unique. It requires a special kind of insight to see its meaning and its wisdom, which is itself a gift from God.

For those who are not on God’s wavelength, it makes no sense but for those who are it speaks of God’s power, above all, the power of love.

Paul quotes from the prophet Isaiah (29:14) in which God says he will bring the wisdom of the wise to nothing. This was originally said in the context of the people of Judah and Jerusalem who thought it was an astute thing to do to make an alliance with Egypt and thus turn away the threats of Sennacherib, the Assyrian king. God had other plans to deal with him, plans which the “wise” never dreamt of. In fact, Sennacherib was forced to withdraw from the gates of the city when his army was unexpectedly decimated by a kind of plague.

And where are the wise men now - all those pagan philosophers, including those Paul met in Athens and who laughed at his message? asks Paul. Perhaps Paul knew of the remark of Aristides who said that on every street in Corinth one met a so-called wise man, who had his own solutions to all the world’s problems. (We still have them in our newspapers every day!) Where, asks Paul, are the experts in the Mosaic Law? Where are the “debaters of this age”, those Greek sophists who loved to engage in long and subtle disputes?

Has not God - in Christ - made the wisdom of the world look foolish? Faced with the mystery of the Cross such people have nothing to say.

In a beautifully paradoxical statement (worthy of an orator!) he says: “Since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.”

Not, of course, that their preaching is foolish but the message of Christ crucified is viewed by the world as foolish. Jesus said something similar: “I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned, you have revealed them to the childlike” (Luke 10:21).

And so, the Jews are demanding miracles and signs as proofs of God’s saving power among them. Several times in the Gospel Jesus was asked for a ‘sign’ to prove his credentials, even though his whole public life was a succession of signs which the ordinary people frequently recognised. The Greeks, on the other hand, indulged in endless philosophising about ‘truth‘ and ‘wisdom’ without ever coming to grips with the realities of life.

The Cross is on a completely different level. It does not require great intelligence and learning to be understood. It can be grasped by the totally illiterate person. It is not a message of intellectual depth but a witness to immeasurable love. It can only be accessed by faith and trust.

Paul and his companions are proclaiming a crucified Lord, a message of power shining through total impotence and apparent failure. On the face of it, it is a total contradiction, except to those who can see its inner meaning.

No wonder it is a ’scandal’, an insuperable obstacle for those Jews who were waiting for an altogether different Messiah. They expected a triumphant, political Messiah, not a crucified one.

Even Jesus’ disciples had this expectation. On the day of the Ascension, they asked him: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom of Israel?” (Acts 1:6). The answer, of course, was “Yes” but not in the way they were thinking. Similarly, the two disciples on the way to Emmaus said to the stranger who walked along with them: “We were hoping he [Jesus] would be the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). It was only after Jesus had explained the Scriptures to them that they realised the real truth behind their question.

And to the Gentiles it made no sense whatever. How could a crucified criminal be proclaimed as the world’s Saviour? Greeks and Romans were sure no reputable person

would ever be crucified, so it was unthinkable that a crucified criminal could be the Saviour.

However, for those who have received the call, be they Jews or Greeks, Jesus on the cross speaks eloquently of the power and wisdom of God. The crucified Christ is the power that saves and the wisdom that transforms apparent folly into ultimate and highest discernment.

And Paul finishes with a memorable and much-quoted statement: “For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.”

Today the Cross is still seen as a stumbling block and as nonsense by those who only see the external image. In a world dedicated to acquisition, power and success, it gives a totally unacceptable message. Jesus is seen as a soppy wimp.

The power of the Cross, the power of active non-violence is not understood and the followers of Jesus are ridiculed and deemed irrelevant. As Christians living in this world, we are probably often caught in the middle. We are carried along by the power-success dream and at the same time would like to be able to make the weakness-failure Way of Christ ours too.

What we need is to be able to see clearly that the real power and wisdom is with Jesus’ way and that the way of the world ultimately leads only to nothingness.

Matthew 25:1-13

The second chapter of this discourse consists of three long parables, with all of which we are familiar. They all have the common theme of preparation for the final coming of the Lord whenever that will be.

Today’s reading is the parable about the wise and foolish bridesmaids, literally, ‘virgins’. The story reflects common wedding customs of the time. The bridesmaids who attend on the bride are waiting for the bridegroom to come. The time of his arrival is not known. Perhaps it is his way of asserting his male authority from the very beginning of their marriage! (Just as today it is the bride who asserts her last moments of freedom by coming late!)

In the story there are 10 bridesmaids altogether. Of these we are told five were “sensible” and the others were “foolish”. The sensible girls all brought an extra supply of oil with them while the foolish ones only had their lamps. The lamps consisted of oil-soaked rags at the top of a pole and needed to have oil added every 15 minutes or so.

The bridegroom was long in coming. The implication is that he was taking much longer than expected. In fact, he was so long in coming that the girls all fell asleep. Suddenly, in the middle of the night, the call went up: “The bridegroom is on his way! Go out to meet him!”

Immediately the girls got ready and trimmed their torches. The charred edges had to be cut away and the rags soaked in more oil. The foolish ones immediately realised they were running out of oil; quite a lot was needed for this kind of torch. They ask their companions to share some of their oil. These refused on the grounds that there was not enough to go round and none of them would have enough. The foolish ones were told to go off and buy some more for themselves.

However, while they were still away, the bridegroom arrived. Those who were ready went into the marriage celebration with him and the doors were shut. When the foolish girls finally arrived with their new supply of oil, they found the doors closed in their face. They cried out: “Lord, Lord, open to us!” But the bridegroom answered: “I do not know you.”

Again this is a parable warning us all to be ready when the Lord comes. In the early Church, he had at first been expected to come in the very lifetime of the early Christians. This belief is reflected in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (which is read at this time in Year I) and which is the earliest writing of the New Testament.

But Jesus did not come and, by the time Matthew’s gospel appeared, people were beginning to realise that his coming could be in a more distant future. It is in this context that today’s parable gives a warning. If the Lord was not going to come soon, then some people might begin to take things easy and become lax in their living of the Gospel. Today’s passage suggests that that is not a very wise way of behaving.

The bridegroom may not have come when expected but he did come. And, when he came, half of the group were not ready. In other places, Jesus has warned that we do not know the day or the hour, for he will come like a thief in the night. The only policy is constant readiness. If we are not ready and he does come, then we may find the doors closed and hear what are perhaps the most chilling words in the whole Gospel: “I do not know you.”

In John’s gospel Jesus says that, as the Shepherd, he knows his sheep and they know him. Not to be known by Jesus means to have broken our relationship with him through sinful and loveless behaviour. To be in that state when he comes is truly tragic. The choice is ours; we have been given adequate warning.

While the Gospel is speaking about the final or eschatological coming of Jesus as King and Lord, it would be very complacent of us to think that there are no signs of it happening in the near future. That would put us in the same category as the foolish bridesmaids! While the final coming may still be far off, our own rendezvous with the Lord can be at any time. For all practical purposes, that is the time we have to prepare for.

Just yesterday our newspapers in the city where I am writing this reported an unmarked police car going out of control in a crowded downtown area, killing two people and seriously injuring others. You or I could have been one of those victims, young and in perfect health with a whole life before us. But the Lord called.

If it had been me, would I have had “oil in my lamp”? That is, what would I be able to show the Lord in terms of Gospel-centred living? Maybe we think the “sensible” girls in the story were selfish not to have shared their oil, but there are some things which we have to bring to the Lord on our own. We cannot borrow the good life that someone else has led. It is has to be totally ours.

Clearly, the best way to prepare is not to think anxiously of the future but to concentrate on the here and now. Let us learn to live totally in the present, to seek and find God there. If we can do that, then all the rest will take care of itself. And, whether the Groom arrives early or late, it will not matter. Because he has been constantly part of my everyday life. And, apart from the insurance that it gives, is it not by far the best way to spend our days?

Week 21 | Saturday

1 Cor 1:26-31

Today’s reading picks up from yesterday’s discussion about true wisdom in relation to the Cross of Christ and applies it to the Christian disciples of Corinth.

As a clear example and proof of the power of Christ’s weakness, Paul cites the Corinthian Christians themselves. They are living proof that salvation does not depend on merely human resources. If they experience salvation, the credit must go completely to the Lord.

Most of the early Christian converts did not come from the class of intellectuals, from the politically influential or from aristocratic families. By the standards of the world, they were not considered among the more intellectually gifted. This only emphasises the power of Christ’s message which the powerful were not able to overturn - and still cannot overturn.

God has called not the wise and the rich and the powerful to build his Kingdom but the poorly educated and the economically weak. He has chosen “what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong”. He has chosen “those who are nothing at all show up those who are everything”, Paul tells the Corinthians.

This does two things: it proves that the deeper wisdom is in the Way of Christ, while at the same time what the Christians do achieve is the work of God in them and not something they can personally boast about. “It is due to God that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us the wisdom of God.” To recognise that wisdom we need the inspiration of God through his Spirit. These Christians, low down in the social scale, are the evidence of God’s power and greatness. God has become their wisdom, their virtue, their holiness and their freedom.

Later on, the might of kings and governments and “wise men” will be thrown against them but they will have a power within them that cannot be overcome. This has happened again and again down to our own day. Within our own lifetime, regimes have tried to obliterate the Christian way and have failed.

The committed Christian is possessed of a vision of life that opponents do not understand. It is a vision based on the search for truth and love and justice as the only weapons of power. Equipped with such transcendent weapons which originate in God they cannot but win out in the end.

Matthew 25:14-30

Today is our final reading from Matthew’s gospel and on Monday we will begin the reading of Luke’s gospel. Today also is also our last reading from the fifth and final discourse of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel.

There are two great passages left – the parable of the talents and the description of the last judgement – but we will only be taking the first of these. Both deal with the final judgment and, like the parable of the bridesmaids, are warnings on how we are to prepare.

The parable speaks of an employer who, before he set off on a journey, entrusted his servants with large sums of money. He gave them different amounts according to their ability. One got five talents, one two and the third just one. A ‘talent’ was an enormous amount of money in the ancient world, so five talents was a veritable fortune. Originally, the term stood for a unit of weight, about 75 pounds or 30-something kilos and later for a unit of coinage, the value depending on the metal used. Actually, the current meaning of ‘talent’ comes from this parable.

The amount given out indicates the generosity of the employer. But the money was not for their own personal enjoyment. It was meant to be used productively.

The first two both traded actively with the money they had been given and doubled their original capital. The third man, however, buried his money in the ground (the most secure place in a pre-banking society).

When the employer came back, the first two presented their accounts. The employer was very pleased and they were entrusted with even more. To each he said, “Well done, good and faithful servant, you have shown you can be faithful in small things, I will trust you with greater; come and join in your master’s happiness.”

Then the third man came along with his one talent. He had not traded with it because he was afraid he would lose his money. “I had heard you were a hard man, reaping where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered; so I was afraid… Here is your talent, have it back.” Ironically, he was the one who was given the least and from whom the least was expected. But even that little he failed to produce. Perhaps he even expected to be praised for his prudence.

The employer does not deny the charge of being a hard man, but he accuses the man of not having done even the least thing to increase his capital. He could have deposited or lent the money and got some interest. But he had absolutely nothing to show of his own.

The money is taken from him and given to the one who had five talents. Surprising? Unfair? Not really. This man had already shown he was a very good investment. And Jesus sums up: “To everyone who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough; but from the man who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

The word ‘talent’ which in biblical times referred to a huge amount of money now denotes a particular gift or ability with which a person is endowed. “He has a great talent for music; she has a great talent for design.” In that sense, we have all been endowed with talents in varying degrees or, to use a word which Paul prefers, ‘charisms’. In either case they indicate some distinctive ability which is to a large extent innate or God-given.

Everyone of us has been endowed in some way. And, as in the parable, some are greatly endowed and others less so. All that is asked is that we make use of that gift or those gifts to the best of our ability and not for ourselves alone (that is to bury them in the ground) but to build up the kingdom and make a positive contribution to the community to which we belong.

At the end we will be asked, as the men in the parable were, “How did you use the gifts I gave you and how productive were they in furthering the growth of the Kingdom?”

Today then is a day for us to identify what those gifts actually are. It is possible that some people have never given it much thought. They see their Christian life in rather passive terms, just looking after themselves, living in conformity to the commandments of God and the Church, fulfilling their ‘religious duties’, making sure to die “in the state of grace”. This, in effect, is to bury one’s talents.

Today’s gospel makes it very clear that far more is expected of us. We are expected to make an active and positive contribution to the work of the Kingdom and of the Christian community as the Body of Christ. In practice, that means taking an active part in our Church, in our parish and in making a contribution to the betterment of our society. So, it is very important for us to spend some time in reflecting on what are my unique ‘talents’ or gifts or abilities and then to ask how and to what end I am using them?

And the time to do that is today because, as we have been amply warned, we do not know when our ‘employer’ is coming back to check his accounts with us.

The end of today’s passage indicates that if we do not move forward, or are not productive, then we go backwards. We cannot remain static or purely passive in God’s service. To do nothing is not a possible option. The more we give and share with others from the resources we have the more we are personally enriched; on the other hand, to cling to our gifts and keep them just for ourselves is to become smaller in every way.

Week 22 | Monday

1 Cor 2:1-5

Paul continues to explain the basis on which he was proclaiming Christ to the people of Corinth.

When he first arrived among them from Athens about the year 51 AD, he did not come as a polished orator with convincing arguments. Perhaps Apollos, a Jewish exile from the sophisticated society of Rome who became one of the leaders of the community, had led the Corinthians to place more emphasis on eloquence and intellectual arguments. Paul more than once acknowledges his weaknesses in this area. Was this the “sting of the flesh” which distressed him so much?

The only message Paul had to bring was that of Jesus Christ and him crucified. On the face of it, it did not look like a very encouraging message. Not one to attract followers in large numbers, especially given Paul’s acknowledged weakness as a persuasive speaker.

No wonder, then that he had come among them “in great fear and trembling” (a common biblical expression) for he had none of the eloquence which they might have expected and to which they were accustomed from the intellectuals of the day.

All Paul had to offer was the persuasiveness that came from “power of the Spirit”. He came to proclaim to them the “mystery of God”. ‘Mystery’ here is not so much something that is difficult to understand as a truth which had previously been hidden but is now made known to those who are ready to hear it. Greece at the time had its ‘mystery religions’ where the beliefs of the religion were only made known to initiates, something akin to some secret societies today. The ‘mystery’ here was the revelation about what God did for us through the life, death and resurrection of God’s Son made man - something that could never be discovered by the most sophisticated philosophers.

As Paul discovered in time, his deficiency was, in fact, his strength. All he had to offer was his personal knowledge and experience of Jesus as his crucified Lord and that was all that was needed. Paul was only the fragile “vessel of clay” through whom God did his work. As a powerful orator the focus would have been more on himself and his arguments. His message did not rest on human wisdom but on “the power of God” which was clearly visible even in his weaknesses.

What Paul says here is of great importance to us in communicating our faith to others. There are those who try to convince non-believers or those who have fallen away by piling on apologetic arguments and proofs of God’s existence or the validity of the Church’s teaching.

Ultimately, though, the only really effective way to lead people to Christ is by the sharing of our own experience of knowing him and by the witness of a life that is clearly influenced by the vision of the Gospel.

It is also consoling for us to realise that the success of our evangelising does not depend on our own abilities. As Paul would say elsewhere, “when I am weak then I am strongest of all”. It is not a matter of intellectual power but of our integrity which allows God’s truth and love to shine through us.

At the same time, as one commentator reminds us,

this does not give preachers a licence to neglect study and preparation. Paul’s letters reveal a great deal of knowledge in many areas of learning, and his eloquence is apparent in his address before the Areopagus [in Athens] (see Acts 17:22-31). Paul’s point is that unless the Holy Spirit works in a listener’s heart, the wisdom and eloquence of a preacher are ineffective. Paul’s confidence as a preacher did not rest on intellectual and oratorical ability, as did that of the Greek orators.

Our communicating of Christ and his vision to others will also depend much more on the inner truth of our message than on our powers of persuasion.

Luke 4:16-30

We begin today the reading of Luke’s gospel which will bring us up to the end of the Church year. We have already gone through Matthew and Mark and John’s gospel has been spread through various parts of the year, especially during the Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter seasons.

The gospel is a companion volume to the book of the Acts and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first.

Luke presents the works and teachings of Jesus that are especially important for understanding the way of salvation. Its scope is complete from the birth of Christ to his ascension. It appeals to both Jews and Gentiles.

However, we take up Luke’s gospel at the beginning of Jesus’ public life (chap. 4). After his baptism he had returned “in the power of the Spirit to Galilee”, the northern province of Palestine and his home province. Already people were talking about him everywhere.

Now, as our reading opens, we find him in Nazareth, a small town in Galilee and the place where he grew up. From the verses immediately preceding, it does not seem that Jesus actually began his ministry in Nazareth. The event described here may not have taken place until a year later. One suggestion (NIV Bible) is that all that is described in John’s gospel between 1:19 to 4:42 took place between the temptation in the desert and the moving north to Galilee (vv.13 and 14).

But Luke has arranged the structure of his gospel so that Jesus will begin his public life in Nazareth and will gradually proceed southwards towards his goal, Jerusalem, without turning back. In the other Synoptics he moves around Galilee in all directions and John suggests that he made a number of visits to Jerusalem during his public life.

The Jerusalem Bible suggests that our passage today actually combines three distinct parts:

the first, vv.16-22 (Jesus is honoured), occurring at the time indicated by Matt 4:13;

the second, vv.23-24 (Jesus astonishing his audience), the visit of which Matthew and Mark speak;

the third, vv.25-30 (the life of Jesus threatened), not mentioned by Matthew or Mark and to be placed towards the end of the Galilean ministry.

In this way Luke presents an introductory tableau which is a summary and symbol of Christ’s great offer and of its contemptuous rejection by his own people.

As the reading opens we find Jesus in the town synagogue. It is a sabbath day. He gets up to read the scripture and comments on it. The ruler of the synagogue could authorise any adult Jew to read the scripture lesson. The passage he reads is full of significance. It comes from the prophet Isaiah and Jesus’ reading of it amounts to a manifesto or what we might call today a “mission statement”. ‘Books’ in those days were in the form of scrolls and the Scriptures were kept in a special place in the synagogue and given to the reader by an attendant. Jesus may have chosen the passage himself or it may have been assigned for that day.

But it is more than just a mission statement. As he reads it becomes clear that the whole statement is about Jesus himself. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” This has already been confirmed during his baptism in the river Jordan when “the Holy Spirit came down on him in the form of a dove” and a voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22).

“Because he has anointed me.” In saying this Jesus is making an unequivocal claim to be the Messiah or the Christ, the long-awaited liberating King of Israel. The word “Messiah”, translated into Greek as Christos, means someone who is anointed with oil. (We call the oil in baptism and confirmation ‘chrism’.) And a person was made king by having oil poured over his head. (We remember how David was anointed king.) Jesus, of course, was not literally anointed but had been figuratively ‘anointed’ by the coming of the Spirit on him in his baptism. ‘Anointing’ is our equivalent of ‘coronation’, symbolised by the putting of a crown on the new king.

Then comes the mission of this King:

To preach the gospel to the poor,
to heal the broken-hearted,
to proclaim liberty to captives and
recovery of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are hurt
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.

There is nothing here of restoring the glories of Israel, nothing about conquering enemies and laying waste their lands. No, it is about letting the poor of this world hear the Good News of God’s love for them. It is about healing and reconciliation. It is about liberating those who are tied down by any form of enslavement. It is about helping people to see clearly the true meaning of life. It is about restoring wholeness to people’s lives and to societies. It is about the inauguration of the Kingdom by its King.

It is, in short, the whole picture of Jesus that will unfold in the pages of Luke, a gospel which focuses on the poor and vulnerable, a gospel of tenderness and compassion, a gospel of the Spirit and of joy, a gospel of prayer and healing.

It is about “proclaiming a year acceptable to the Lord”. This refers to the Messianic age when salvation would be proclaimed. Isaiah in the original text is alluding to the Year of Jubilee, when every 50 years slaves were set free, debts were cancelled and ancestral lands were returned to the original family. Isaiah was thinking mainly of freedom from Babylonian captivity but Jesus was speaking of liberation across the board of human living.

And, as he finished the reading, Jesus put down the scroll and said that these things were now being fulfilled as they were hearing them.

And the townspeople who thought they knew him so well were overawed by the wisdom with which he spoke. This positive reaction to Jesus is a favourite theme in Luke. “Is not this Joseph’s son?” they asked rhetorically. But they were wrong. He was not Joseph’s son; he was the son of Mary and of the Father, the divine Word sharing our ‘flesh’. (As suggested above, this event may have occurred on a second visit.)

And this in turn leads us to the third section of the reading which provides an unexpected turn of events and is more in harmony with the later part of Jesus’ public life. Jesus’ hearers were surprised at the way he spoke but they were not moved to change. After all, he was just the son of Joseph, and someone they knew so well could have nothing to say to them. At the same time Jesus says they, his own townspeople, must be wondering why he is not doing the things in Nazareth that he was doing in places like Capernaum.

Capernaum, apparently a sizeable town, was where Peter lived and Jesus made his house the centre out of which he did his missionary work in Galilee. A 5th century basilica now stands on the supposed site of the house and there is a 4th century synagogue quite near.

The reason for their non-acceptance is that they do not really accept him for what he is. He reminds them that prophets are seldom accepted in their own place. Familiarity blinds people to their message. “I know who he is and he has nothing to say to me.” Jesus then gives two rather provocative examples:

During a great famine in the time of the prophet Elijah he was sent to help not his fellow Israelites but a poor widow in Sarepta, near Sidon in non-Jewish territory. Sidon was one of the oldest Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast and about 33 km north of Tyre. Later, Jesus would heal the daughter of a Gentile woman here.

And in the time of the prophet Elisha, there were many lepers in Israel but he was sent to cure Naaman, a Gentile general from Syria.

God reaching out to Gentiles through his prophets sets the stage for the Gentiles to receive the message of the Prophet Jesus, which is so much a theme of Luke’s writings. But these remarks so angered the people of Nazareth that they dragged Jesus to the brow of a hill with the intention of throwing him down but he just walked through them. Whether he did this miraculously or from the sheer power of his personality is not clear. In any case, his time had not yet come.

Prophetic voices being rejected by their own is a phenomenon only too common in our own day. And it was something Jesus foretold would happen to his followers, simply for being his followers and proclaiming his vision of life. In the meantime, let us make Jesus’ mission statement our own. It is what being a Christian means.

Week 22 | Tuesday

1 Cor 2:10-16

Here Paul discusses the true nature of the genuinely spiritual person. And the source of his spirituality is, not surprisingly, the Spirit of God. “The Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God.” The Spirit does this not in order to know them better for the Spirit knows all things. Rather, he understands fully the depth of God’s nature and so is fully competent to reveal them to us.

And, just as only an individual person alone knows what is going on in the depths of one’s own heart, so only the depths of God can be known by God’s own Spirit.

What distinguishes the true followers of Christ is that they are not imbued by the spirit of the world around them. The ‘spirit of the world’ is that ‘wisdom of the age’ which is alienated from God and all he stands for. It is the attitude of ‘sinful nature’ as described in the Letter to the Romans (8:6-7). Instead, true followers have received the gift of God’s Spirit which helps us to understand the gifts, the love that is constantly being showered on us.

So Paul’s teaching is not, as he said before, based on philosophical speculations but comes in the way the Spirit communicates, that is, straight to the heart and not just in the mind.

In the verses which follow (including some which are not part of today’s reading) Paul explains why many fail to grasp true wisdom. It is because such wisdom is perceived by the spiritual (i.e. mature) Christian. The Corinthians, however, were unspiritual, worldly (infant) believers (3:1-4), and the proof of their immaturity was their division over their human leaders (3:3-4).

The unspiritual person is described as one who is closed to the working of the Spirit. The Greek term here is psychikos a person who depends on his own natural resources, who, in the words of Romans 8:9, follows “mere natural instincts”. This person is dominated by the merely physical, worldly or natural life.

Such a person - and we have surely met him/her often - rejects the Gospel teaching as nonsense. In fact, he does not understand it because understanding only comes through being open to the promptings of the Spirit.

The spiritual person, on the other hand, “is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by others”. The Spirit gives the follower of Christ deep insights into the meaning of life, it gives him a vision of what is really important. Paul himself, as a ‘spiritual’ man, is not to be judged by the Corinthians who are ’sensual’ and immature (not yet ready for solid food but only for milk).

Many a truly Spirit-guided person will, as Jesus and Paul were, be frequently criticised. He may be rejected and even removed altogether by exile or death. But, as long as he remains true to the guidance of the Spirit, he does not feel effectively judged by such people.

The Christian must never be arrogant or contemptuous of others; at the same time, he must not fear or hesitate to be in opposition to the conventional wisdom of his environment. In order to make sure of his integrity he must constantly discern the voice and the leading of God in all that he says and does.

Paul ends by asking a question posed by Isaiah: “Who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?” Paul answers by saying that, while we may not know the mind of God and still less dare to teach him, he does claim that he and many of the baptised “are those who have the mind of Christ”.

To have the “mind of Christ” is to see things the way Jesus sees them, to value things the way he values them, totally to share his vision of the meaning and goal of our lives. What exactly that mind of Christ is can be found in the lovely hymn that Paul quotes in his letter to the Philippians (2:6-11).

Let us pray today that we may be truly spiritual people who share and understand that mind of Christ.

Luke 4:31-37

Immediately after his mixed reception in Nazareth, Jesus moves on to Capernaum, a town on the north shore of Galilee, which was to be the base from which Jesus did much of his missionary work. As in Nazareth, he taught the people in the synagogue on the sabbath. Unlike in Nazareth, “his teaching made a deep impression” on the people because he spoke “with authority”. He did not quote other authorities, like the teachers of the law, because his authority was directly from God, it was his own.

At the same time, it was not the authority of domination. It was the authority of someone who has access to special knowledge, the authority of someone who speaks in his own name and not just on behalf of others, the authority of one who empowers others and makes them grow. (‘Authority’ comes from the Latin auctoritas, which in turn comes from the verb augere, to increase or augment).

And Jesus’ authority is not only in word and teaching. Right there in the synagogue as he speaks is a man possessed by an “unclean spirit”. The spirit speaks through the man. It speaks in fear of the power of Jesus. “Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” This title seems to indicate that the spirit recognises Jesus’ divine origin but not his Messiahship. There was a belief in those times that knowing the exact name of one’s opponent gave one power over him.

Jesus ordered the evil spirit of the man who was thrown to the ground but not hurt. The people are amazed. Exorcism was not new to them but they had never seen it done with such speed and effectiveness. They are astounded again at the power and authority of Jesus. They realise they are in the presence of someone very special, in fact, the “Holy One of God”.

Each one of us is given authority of some kind - as a parent, a teacher, our job responsibility… Let us make sure that we use it in such a way as to enhance the abilities of others rather than diminish them.

Week 22 | Wednesday

1 Cor 3:1-9

Paul continues his thoughts on the nature of the truly spiritual person.

With regret he cannot call the Corinthian Christians spiritual people. They are still sensual, governed by their bodily desires and still “infants in Christ”. They are still “of the flesh”, like worldly people rather people of God. They are living by purely human standards. And so, up to this time, he has treated them like infants, giving them milk rather than solid food.

They are not ready yet to hear the Gospel in its fullness because they are still so un-spiritual.

On what does he base this evaluation? It is clear from “all the jealousy and wranglings” that divide them so badly and which make them in no way different from their non-Christian neighbours. They are divided into factions, one rooting for Paul and another for Apollos.

To Paul this makes no sense at all. Paul and Apollos were merely the agents by which the faith message was brought to them. And the different ways in which they did that was based, not on a preferred style of operating, but on the different roles that they had been given by the Lord. Their different roles could not be compared with each other.

As Paul puts it, his role was to do the planting while Apollos did the watering. In other words, it was Paul’s role to found, to set up from scratch the Christian community in Corinth, starting something which had never existed before. Apollos, on the other hand, was working in a church already begun and building on the foundation that had been laid by Paul. But the actual growth of the community is the work of God alone and of no one else. Without God, the sower and the waterer are nothing.

So it does not matter who plants or who waters. Each one will be rewarded according as he is doing the task assigned to him. Paul sums up by saying that he and Apollos are fellow-workers with God. They are partners, each one contributing something special, to the whole work.

The people, for their part, are God’s farm, the soil in which he works and all growth is attributable to him alone. And they are God’s building, the place where he takes up his abode; he lives in them. That is what makes them ‘holy’ (hagioi, ‘), a people set apart from those around them. Later in the letter Paul will speak of the Christian community as a ‘temple’, the place where the Lord is to be found in a real way.

And so they belong to God and not to Paul or Apollos. They are God’s people and not Paul’s or Apollos’. So, for people to say they belong to Paul or to Apollos makes no sense.

It is certainly not for us to point an accusing finger at the Christians of Corinth for we see the same kind of factionalism at many levels dividing Christians today, both inter-denominational and intra-denominational.

The divisions among the Christian churches, which are often expressed in the most regrettable and un-Christian forms, must be a matter of shame for all of us, especially when we read Jesus’ prayer for unity in John’s gospel (chap. 17), not to mention a source of scandal and confusion among non-Christians.

There are also divisions in our own Catholic Church at many levels from high up to low down. We should especially take cognisance of divisions in the communities to which we personally belong - our parishes, organisations and groups within parishes, our families…

Instead, we should be making sure that we do not say or do anything which contributes to such divisions and, where we can do so, let us try to be agents of healing and reconciliation. “By this will all know that you are my disciples, that you have love one for another” (John 14:35).

Luke 4:38-44

After the scene in the synagogue where Jesus healed a man possessed by an evil spirit, he goes straight to Peter’s house. It was a sabbath day so Jesus could not move around or do any major activity. He seems to have used this house as his base when in Capernaum and that part of Galilee. (Jesus had “nowhere to lay his head”, no dwelling of his own, but it seems clear that he was not a streetsleeper. There were always people ready to offer him hospitality - a custom of the Middle East and a model for Christians of every age and place.)

Peter’s mother-in-law was in the grip of a fever and the disciples begged Jesus to do something for her. (We might remember that the first pope was married.) Jesus stood over her and, with a word, cured her. Immediately she got up and began to serve Jesus and his group.

There is a lesson here. Health and healing are not just for the individual. Her healing immediately restored her to the community and the duty of serving that community. (And not just because she was a woman! If it had been the father-in-law, the same would apply.) As long as we are in health our energies are meant to be directed to the building up of the community and not simply for our personal enjoyment.

“Now when the sun was setting” - we need to remember it was a sabbath. The sabbath went from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday (so Jesus could not be properly buried on the Friday evening when he died). According to the traditions, Jews could not travel more than two-thirds of a mile or carry any load. Only after sunset could the sick be brought to Jesus.

As soon as the sabbath was over, large numbers brought their sick to him. He “laid his hands on every one of them” and healed them all. As Jesus had announced in the synagogue at Nazareth, the Kingdom of God had arrived and was entering the lives of people, bringing them health and wholeness.

Many were also liberated from the power of evil spirits. These spirits shouted at Jesus “You are the Son of God”. As we mentioned earlier, by using Jesus’ title they hoped to exert control over him. It did not work, of course. Whether these were actual cases of possession or were psychological or moral disorders which made people behave in abnormal ways and perhaps ways harmful to themselves and others is not clear. But clearly the presence of the Kingdom is being felt.

At daybreak - Jesus had been working the whole night for the people - he went off into a quiet place. The desert is the place where God is to be found and very likely, as Mark tells us, Jesus went there to pray and to be alone. The people, who had seen what he did for them, wanted him to stay with them. Their attitude is in marked contrast to the people of Nazareth.

But he could and would not. “I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also; that is why I have been sent.” And so we are told that he was now preaching in the synagogues of Judea - in the south of the country, although the term may simply refer to the whole of Jewish territory.

No place could have a monopoly on his attentions. We need to attach ourselves to Jesus and keep close to him but we cannot cling to him in a way that prevents others from experiencing his healing touch.

On the contrary, it is our task as his disciples to see that as many as possible come to know and experience his love, his compassion and his healing.

Week 22 | Thursday

1 Cor 3:18-23

Again Paul urges the Corinthians to put aside the “wisdom of the world” and learn to be a fool for Christ in the eyes of that world. To be a fool means to turn away from the ‘wisdom’ of the world, which will make one, in the eyes of many, a fool. It is the first step to real wisdom. It is only when we can recognise in the apparent failure and disaster of the Cross the triumph of God’s love that we begin to have true wisdom.

The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. The wisdom of this world believes in the pursuit of money and material wealth, success and power over others as the ways to fulfilment and happiness. People are even ready to die for these things but in the long run they do not lead to the fulfilment we all long for.

Quoting from the Book of Job (5:12-13), Paul says “The Lord knows wise men’s thoughts: he knows how useless they are.” God’s wisdom, on the other hand, is conveyed to us through the life and death of Jesus.

So, Paul continues, let no one boast on the level of human beings. He picks up again the call to unity which he raised at the beginning of his letter (1:10-13).

For instance, about being one person’s disciple rather than another. The Christian leaders - Paul, Apollos, etc - belong to the whole Church. No group can call one leader its very own. In other words, it was quite wrong - as the Corinthians apparently had been doing - to be investing their whole self in someone like Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas (Peter), or in the world in general, in life or in death, in the present or the future. All of these things are mere servants or agents of God and we can never stop at them.

So let there be no more talk that one group is for Paul and another group for Apollos. For “you belong to Christ and Christ belongs to God”. Christians are in union with the Church’s true leaders and with Christ, who in turn is in union with the other members of the Trinity.

All, however they came to be members of the community, can have only Christ as the source of meaning for their lives. And it is through Christ, and only through him and not through any other human agency, that they will find access to God from whom they have come and to whom they are called to be finally united.

If the Corinthians were genuinely wise, their perceptions would be reversed, and they would see everything in the world and all those with whom they live in the church in their true relations with one another. On the level of ownership, one reads: God, Christ, church members, church leaders - in that order. But on the level of service one reads in the opposite direction.

Only when we see Church leadership in terms of service will we avoid the kind of situations which Paul is denouncing. Once we reverse the order we begin to create the factionalism that was hurting the Corinthian church. We might well apply this idea to the situation of our own church be it on the world, national or local level.

Luke 5:1-11

This is Luke’s version of the first call of Jesus’ disciples. It differs significantly from the parallel versions in Mark and Matthew and is a combination of passages from Mark and John.

We are told that Jesus was standing by the shore of Lake Gennesaret. The other gospel writers call it the Sea of Galilee and John twice refers to it as the Sea of Tiberias.

Because of the large crowds pressing in on him to hear the word of God, Jesus was forced to borrow one of two boats moored near the shore where their owners were washing their nets. “He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon” and “remaining seated, he continued to teach the crowds from the boat”. As we saw in the synagogue at Nazareth (and also in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew), sitting was the usual teaching position. From a practical point of view, by preaching from the boat Jesus could avoid the pressure of the crowd and yet be close enough to speak to them.

It is a simple, straightforward statement and yet there is a symbolism here. Jesus gets into Simon’s boat and teaches from it. The boat, in the Gospel, is frequently a symbol of the church community. It is very meaningful to say that Jesus stepped into that boat, that it was Peter’s boat, and that he taught from there. It is a symbol of what is to come in the near future.

Now comes the lesson and the revelation. At the end of the teaching, Simon is told to go out into the deep water and start fishing. (He will not be called Peter until the next chapter.) “Master, we have been hard at it all night long and have caught nothing; but if you say so, I will lower the nets.” There is here something of the condescension of the expert towards the amateur. “We know there are no fish there but, just to make you happy, we’ll let down the nets.”

But their nets were hardly in the water when they were so full of fish that they were on the point of breaking. They (Peter and those others with him in the boat) had to call their companions in the other boat to come to their help (they do not seem to have caught any fish; only Simon’s boat does). But the two boats together were now so full of fish that they were on the point of sinking.

Peter, just now so arrogant and all-knowing, is totally overcome. He knew there were no fish there. So there was only one explanation. The man standing before him was Someone very special: “Go away from me, Lord, I am a sinful man.” It is the reaction of a person in the awful presence of God’s overwhelming power and goodness. We see similar reactions by Abraham (Gen 18:27), Job (42:6) and Isaiah (6:5).

Peter did not belong there; the expert realises he is nothing in the presence of this man. Instead, he becomes so aware of his shortcomings. Paradoxically, it is the saints who are most ready to acknowledge their sinfulness. And his companions, James and John, were equally amazed. There is no mention of Andrew in this version of the story because he would have been in his brother Peter’s boat. And the passage indicates that Peter was not alone in the boat (”We have worked hard all night…”)

Some commentators feel that Luke may have borrowed this story from John’s account of the disciples going fishing at the end of that gospel. It has been noted that Simon calls Jesus ‘Lord’, a post-resurrection title and refers to his sinfulness, which makes more sense after his triple denial during the Passion. It also looks forward to Peter’s leadership which is confirmed in the same chapter of John.

Jesus then reassures Simon and his companions: “Do not be afraid.” They are words they will hear again. Because he is calling them to be his partners in the work of building his Kingdom. The huge catch of fish made by the boat in which Jesus and Peter were is a sign of a much greater catch of people to be made by the new community led by the Spirit of Jesus and under the leadership of Peter.

Unlike the other gospels, Luke has a period of teaching and miracles precede the call of the disciples. This makes their unhesitating response less surprising and more plausible.

They heard the message, they accepted the call and “with that they brought their boats to land, left everything, and become his followers”. In Mark and Matthew they left their nets and boats. In Luke’s gospel especially, the following of Jesus is understood as absolute - one must leave everything and throw in one’s lot totally with Jesus wherever that will lead. Those boats and nets were the security on which the lives of Peter, his companions and their families depended. But they left them and everything else. This is faith, this is trust. Without it, the mission cannot succeed.

Week 22 | Friday

1 Cor 4:1-5

Paul continues the theme that he and the other apostles and ministers in the community are merely human agents of God.

He asks the Corinthians to see him and his fellow workers in the church as servants and not masters or lords. They are to be seen as stewards or house managers working for a master. And they have been entrusted with communicating the “mysteries” of God.

The word “mystery” (mysterion) here does not strictly mean something that is beyond all understanding. Rather it refers to truths which we could not discover by our own human efforts but which are now being revealed, made known by God through his agents to those who believe. The term is linked to the so-called “mystery religions” of the time, where the inner workings of the religious sect were only made known to initiates.

In the Christian community there are also “mysteries” made known. They are not meant to be kept secret but it is likely that they will only be accepted and understood by those who have faith.

Paul emphasises that what is most expected of a steward is that he can be trusted, that he is reliable and conscientious. Paul also knows, however, that he has his critics among the community so he affirms that his trustworthiness cannot be measured by them. He does not even dare to evaluate his own trustworthiness, on the principle that one is very often a poor judge where oneself is concerned.

Nevertheless, in spite of the criticisms he has received, his own conscience is perfectly clear but that still is not enough. Only God can be his judge. And if only God can judge, a fortiori others have no right to pass final judgement on him. Jesus had something to say about that (cf. Luke 7:37).

When the Lord comes at the end, “at the appointed time”, the hidden intentions of all (Paul and his critics) will be made plain. Then, and only then, “will be the time for each one to have whatever praise he deserves, from God”.

We should remember that each one of us, too, is a steward of the “mysteries” and truths of the Gospel. Through our baptism, they have been entrusted to us and we are expected to pass them on to others.

And we must do our utmost to be faithful and reliable stewards. Even if we are carrying out our stewardship to the best of our ability, it is almost inevitable that we will run into criticism, misunderstandings and opposition. In such cases, we must do our best to be people of honesty and integrity.

Sometimes the criticisms may be valid; sometimes not. If they are valid, we should be grateful and make the necessary changes. If our consciences are clear, we should not be too concerned with what is being said about us and leave the judgement ultimately to God. On our part, we continue to carry out our stewardship to the best of our ability.

Jesus never promised praise and popularity to those who proclaim the Gospel; quite the opposite, in fact. He himself lost his life because of the hatred his work for others generated. “The servant is not above his Master.”

Paul focused on loving and serving Christ and the Gospel in spite of great opposition both from fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians. Let us try to follow in his footsteps.

Luke 5:33-39

The call of the first disciples is followed in Luke by the cure of a leper and then of a paralytic. Then there is the call of Levi (called Matthew in Matthew’s gospel) and the discussion with Jesus about his mixing with sinful and unclean people. It is the first of many confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish leaders.

We then come to today’s reading. Some scribes and Pharisees want to know why, when their disciples and those of John the Baptist regularly fast, Jesus’ disciples “eat and drink freely”. We know that John grew up in the desert and lived on an austere diet of locusts and wild honey. He also preached an austere penitential message and lived a highly disciplined life. The Pharisees also led a highly regimented and strict lifestyle. Jesus, however, together with his disciples, is frequently seen eating at the tables of Pharisees and tax collectors and in the houses of friends.

But, while Jesus rejected ostentatious fasting, we know he fasted (once for 40 days) and praised it together with prayer and almsgiving, provided it was done discreetly and not for display.

Jesus gives two answers to the question. First, he says that it is not appropriate for guests to fast when the bridegroom is still around. A Jewish wedding was and is a specially joyous occasion (plenty of wine needed, as we see in Cana) and it could last for a week. It would be unthinkable to fast at such a time. Here Jesus is the bridegroom. There will come a time when he is not physically with his disciples and then they will fast.

The second reason goes deeper and is presented in the form of a parable. One does not use a new piece of cloth to patch an old garment. At the first sign of stress, the new cloth will be stronger and the old cloth will be torn. Nor does one put new wine into old wineskins. The new wine is still fermenting and expanding. The old wineskins, which are made of goatskins, are already stretched and no longer flexible. When the new wine expands, the old wineskins will not be able to stretch any more and will burst. The result is lost wine and ruined wineskins. So new wine has to be poured into new wineskins.

In this Jesus is clearly saying that his whole vision of religion is new and it can only be accepted and adopted by people who are prepared to see things in a new way. His teaching, his vision cannot be grafted on to the old religion. The old religion emphasised externals like observance of legal and ritual regulations and fasting; Jesus emphasises the interior spirit which is the real measure of a person’s value.

This parable may also be read in conjunction with John’s account of the wedding feast at Cana where Jesus produced new and better wine from the water in the ritual washing jars.

Jesus knows the difficulties his adversaries face. “No one, after drinking old wine, wants new. He says, ‘I find the old wine better’.” Those who had grown up with the ‘old wine’ of the Mosaic Law would find it difficult to switch to the ‘new wine’ that Jesus was offering.

In our Church today there are many who still hanker for the ‘old wine’ of pre-Vatican II days. They have not made the inner shift which is necessary. They have not understood that Vatican II was much more than a change of external practices (such as have taken place in the liturgy). They nostalgically long for the Tridentine Mass in Latin and compare it favourably with the “new” liturgy which they find superficial and lacking in reverence. But they do not seem to have grasped the thinking which is behind the liturgical changes. The new patch does not fit their old cloth. “The old wine is better,” they say.

The new wine will not be appreciated until the wineskins are also changed; otherwise we are in the same situation as the Pharisees were with Jesus.

Week 22 | Saturday

1 Cor 4:9-15

The reading continues from yesterday’s passage. Paul has been describing himself and Apollos as stewards or managers of God’s message. The focus should be totally on the message rather than on the messengers. (Good advice for today’s Church!) As Paul says elsewhere, the messengers are just leaking vessels, vessels of brittle clay. The Corinthians therefore should not be taking sides and pitting one messenger against another, accepting one and rejecting the other. They have no right to be doing such a thing.

They should “keep to what is written”. This may refer to Scripture or the written traditions and teachings that had been passed on to them.

The Corinthians themselves can only make judgements based on the teaching they were given and they should not act as if their ideas were their own. “Is it that you have everything you want - that you are rich already, in possession of your kingdom, with us left outside?”

There is a strong element of irony and sarcasm here as Paul points out their arrogance coupled with their spiritual poverty in comparison with those by whom they were taught.

He wishes it could be otherwise so Paul could share in their “riches” but the sad fact is that those “riches” do not exist.

And, in spite of their calling to be apostles, missionaries and teachers, Paul and his fellow-evangelisers they seem to be at the very bottom of the social ladder. “God has put us at the end of his parade.” It is as if Paul and the other evangelisers were numbered last in the line of condemned men called to fight for their lives in the gladiatorial arena and on display before the whole world.

There is more irony as Paul mockingly compares his position with the imagined superiority of the Corinthians. “We are fools for Christ’s sake, while you are the learned men in Christ; we have no power, but you are influential; you are celebrities, we are nobodies.” The fact was, as he had reminded them earlier, they were neither learned nor powerful nor influential. They came from the lower strata of their society.

On the other hand, what Paul says of himself was largely true. He proceeds to give a litany of the trials and hardships he and his companions have to go through to fulfil their mission of proclaiming Christ to the world. They are hungry and inadequately clothed; beaten and homeless; they work hard to support themselves. (We know that Paul supported himself as a tent-maker.)

But, following the teaching and example of their Master, they turn the other cheek to all the abuse showered on them. When cursed, they bless; when hounded, they put up with it; when insulted, they respond with politeness. They are seen as the refuse and scum of the earth. And - it seems to be implied - some of this abuse comes from the Corinthians themselves.

Paul is saying all this not to shame or condemn them but to bring them “to their senses”, to help them realise the real meaning of the Gospel they have been called on to embrace. They may have “10,000 guardians in Christ” but they should remember they have only one father, only one person who originally established the Gospel among them and that person is Paul. “It was I who begot you in Christ Jesus by preaching the Good News (Gospel).”

All too often we hear Church leaders and pastors being criticised and sometimes with justification. But we do need to remember that, from top to bottom, we are a Church of flawed people. And so, we should keep in mind what Paul says - namely, that what we really need to focus on is the Message rather than the messengers. Some people abandon the Message on the basis of the behaviour of one or two messengers. Sometimes this is a rationalisation for not accepting the Message. We might remember Jesus’ words about being too conscious about the splinter in the eye of the other while there is a large beam of wood in our own. Messengers have had their shortcomings since the very beginning. Just look at Peter and Paul. The Gospel, too, is addressed equally to all and the same fidelity is required of every member and not more from some and less from others.

Luke 6:1-5

Yet another confrontation between Jesus and some Pharisees. Following immediately, as it does, after the parable about the patch and the wineskins, it confirms what Jesus said about the gap between the traditionalists and his vision.

He and his disciples were walking through a cornfield and it was a sabbath day. The disciples were plucking heads of corn, rubbing them in their hands and eating them. The sabbath did not forbid walking short distances. And custom did not forbid “gleaning”, that is, taking corn left over by reapers. It did forbid reaping and threshing. Only a very narrow-minded interpretation could have described plucking as reaping and rubbing between the hands as threshing but that seems to be what is happening here.

The disciples are asked, “Why are you doing something that is forbidden on the sabbath day?” Jesus answers very quickly and to the point. He makes no reference to the narrow-minded legalism that his critics reveal, the “old wineskin” mentality. Instead, he throws at them an incident. David and his men were hungry so they went into the house of God and, with his approval, ate the holy bread which only the priests were allowed to eat (1 Sam 21:6). Each sabbath, 12 loaves of fresh bread were set on a table in the Holy Place. The stale bread was eaten by the priests.

As king, David put himself above the law. Both David’s and the disciples’ actions involved godly men doing something forbidden by law. However, it is never a violation of a law to do what is good and to save life (eating for survival). In that sense both David and the disciples were within the spirit, though not the letter, of the law.

And Jesus, too, is above the law, “The Son of Man is master of the sabbath.” Jesus has the authority to overrule man-made laws concerning the Sabbath, particularly as interpreted by the Pharisees. This does not mean, of course, that Jesus (or even God for that matter) can or will do anything he feels like doing. Jesus will never go against anything that involves the True or the Good; with his Father he is the Source of all that is true and good.

But many of the Jewish laws (like civil laws) are positive law. In themselves, they involve matters which are neither good nor bad. In itself, it is neither good nor bad to stop at a green light or go through a red one. It is neither good nor bad in itself to abstain from work on the sabbath. What makes these acts good or bad is the deeper good of which they are a sign. That deeper good may sometimes involve their non-observance. Hunger and survival may over-ride a rule to fast. In a matter of extreme urgency it may be necessary to drive (safely) through a red light. The letter of the law is violated but not the good it intends.

Some manuscripts of Luke contain a very pertinent saying at this point: “On the same day, seeing a man working on the sabbath day, Jesus said to him: ‘Friend, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are accursed as a breaker of the Law’.” (Jerusalem Bible, loc. cit.) That is a sentiment that goes with new wine and new wineskins.

If truth and goodness are not violated by doing or not doing something, can we way there is sin or evil there?

Week 23 | Monday

1 Cor 5:1-8

Expel the immoral brother!

We now enter a part of the letter where Paul speaks of various moral disorders prevalent in the Christian community of Corinth. Here Paul justifies his criticism of the “unspirituality” and moral immaturity of the Christians in Corinth.

First, he tackles a problem of incest. He has been told that one of the Christians is cohabiting with his own mother-in-law, his father’s wife. Such a relationship is explicitly forbidden in the Mosaic law (cf. Leviticus 18:8) and indeed in nearly every society.

Even pagans hardly stoop to such levels, says Paul. We know, for instance, that the famous

Roman writer and orator Cicero said that incest was practically unheard of in Roman society although it is not certain whether that applied to Corinth, a city notorious for its sexual liberties.

With examples like this, Paul asks how the Corinthian Christians can have such a high opinion of themselves. Did they really think that such behaviour was a boastful expression of freedom? On the contrary, they should be in deep mourning for their sins.

Such a person should not be tolerated in the community and should be expelled from it. Paul, in fact, urges the church (with which he is spiritually united though physically absent) to do so in the name of the Lord Jesus. As we are told in Matthew’s gospel (chapter 18), whenever the community gathers together in the name of Jesus, he is with them and they have authority to speak and make decisions in his name.

Not only that, the man is to be “handed over to Satan”. This may mean that he is to be left unprotected to the power of Satan, which will follow from his being left to fend for himself, without the support of his community, in a pagan and highly immoral society. In Matthew 18:17 Jesus says: “If he [an offending member] refuses to listen to the church [the gathered community], treat him/her as you would a Gentile or tax collector.” In effect, the person is to be excommunicated.

The purpose of this punishment is twofold: it is hoped that the afflictions he will experience from his being ostracised will destroy his misguided sensuality and bring him back into the saving arms of Christ on the day of judgement. The purpose is to heal both the community and the sinner. For Jesus came to save and not to condemn.

With examples like this, Paul tells the Corinthians there is not much for them to boast or be proud about. Although he has been speaking of only one person, he says they should realise that even a tiny amount of yeast can leaven a large batch of dough. Generally in the bible, yeast is taken as a symbol of corruption and sin. The example is something like our saying that one bad apple can spoil a whole barrelful. The community here is being called on to get rid of the yeast of sin, represented by this wrongdoer, because they are called to be an unleavened batch of dough - new creations in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).

Paul then links the image with Jesus as “our Passover”. Jesus is now the paschal Lamb of God sacrificed and his blood poured out on the cross by which the new covenant was sealed, replacing the old Pasch in which a lamb was sacrificed and eaten. Christ, the Lamb of God, was crucified on Passover day, a celebration that began the evening before the Passover meal was eaten (cf. Ex 12:8). By his death on the cross, Christ fulfilled the true meaning of the Jewish sacrifice of the Passover lamb (Isaiah 53:7; John 1:29) and introduced an unending Passover.

“Let us celebrate the feast”, says Paul. He is referring to the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, which followed the Passover. In the Jewish calendar, Passover was followed immediately by the festival of Unleavened Bread. In preparation for this feast all traces of old leavened bread were removed from the house and, during the festival, only unleavened bread was eaten. The sequence of these two feasts provides Paul with an image of Christian living: Christ’s death (the true Passover celebration) is followed by the life of the Christian community, marked by newness, purity and integrity (a never-ending feast of unleavened bread). It meant living their life in total dedication to God, removing from their lives all corrupting behaviour, wickedness and incestuous relationships.

Paul may actually have been writing around Passover time so his words can be taken as a small Easter homily, the earliest in Christian literature.

Expelling someone from our community is something that rarely happens, except where the Church officially excommunicates some person according to the norms of Church Law. This can happen by formal declaration or automatically, depending on the offence committed.

We may have some difficulties with the idea of excommunication although there are clear precedents in the Old and New Testaments. We may feel it contradicts Jesus’ command to forgive 70 times 7 times. However, we must not confuse two issues.

It is true that we must always be ready to forgive and be reconciled with the truly repentant person no matter how many times he or she falls. On the other hand, a Christian community, e.g. a parish, is called on to give witness to the Gospel message and to be an agent in the building up of the Kingdom of God. It is difficult for a community to do this if there is a member or a number of members who are acting in ways which are diametrically opposed to the way of life that the Gospel represents and who, after this has been pointed out to them, still refuse to change.

The community lives by certain standards with which it cannot in conscience compromise. It would seem that, in certain (hopefully rare) cases, the only option the community has is to ask these people to separate themselves from the community as long as they continue doing what they are doing. Of course, if they change and sincerely ask for reconciliation, they will be welcomed back with open arms.

We do see a form of semi-excommunication in our churches when we see people, known to be baptised Catholics, staying away from the Communion table or who openly go to confession before joining in the celebration of the Eucharist.

It is probably true to say that in many places we Catholics (and other Christians too) have a poor awareness of the importance of corporate witness to the Gospel. We tend to think that being a “good Catholic” is a purely personal affair and that the “Church” is the place where we get the helps we need.

As a result, we may at times be too tolerant of “bad apples” among us and thus greatly weaken the witness we are called to give.

Luke 6:6-11

Immediately following the incident of plucking the grains in the cornfield, we have another confrontation with religious leaders also on a Sabbath day. This one is even nastier as it involves what is called in American police movies a “set up” or “entrapment”.

Jesus had gone into the local synagogue, as was his practice on the sabbath, and began to teach. Right in front of him was a man with a withered hand, no doubt something he was born with.

There were scribes and Pharisees in the congregation and, we are told, they “were watching him” to see whether he would heal the man on a Sabbath day so that they could accuse him of breaking the Law.

Medical work was forbidden on the Sabbath because it normally took time. Jesus, of course, healed with just a word but even if he did not, could one say that healing was against the spirit of the Sabbath? At the same time, it is also worth noting that the man was suffering from a chronic and probably non-painful disability. There was no need for him to be cured on the spot; it could easily have waited until the next day.

That gives further point to Jesus’ argument. The poor man had clearly been “planted”. He was being used as bait for their sinister ends. For the Pharisees and their co-conspirators the man and his plight were secondary. They had to prove their point and he was seen as a useful tool.

Jesus, of course, is fully aware of what is going on. He speaks directly to the disabled man: “Rise up and stand out in the middle!” The command to “rise up” is already an indication of what is going to take place; the man is going to be given new life. Nor is there any secrecy. What Jesus is going to do is to be seen by all.

But first he puts a question to the whole congregation, scribes and Pharisees included: “Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do evil? to save life or to destroy it?”

It is really an unanswerable question because the answer is so obvious. But it was not the way these Pharisees were thinking. Their question would be very different: “Is it right to obey the Law or to violate it?” For them the Law, even the letter of the Law, was paramount. There is an irony in Jesus’ question because Jesus is planning to bring healing into a man’s life while they were preparing to bring about his destruction. Who was really breaking the Sabbath?

Not so with Jesus. For him the Law was relative to the true and the good. No implementation of a law can offend the true and the good. And sometimes the following of the true and the good may have to go against the letter of the law. What is legal is not always moral. It can be immoral, that is, evil, to obey a law in certain circumstances. What is moral sometimes transcends the law and may even contradict the law.

Hearing no dissenting answer, Jesus says to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so. His arm was fully restored to normal.

The scribes and Pharisees were furious and began to plot against Jesus. Their plans had been brought to nought. They showed no pleasure that a crippled man had been made whole. Their interpretation of the law had been shown to be wanting and they had to get back at Jesus.

Such situations are by no means unknown in our Christian life and in our Church. We will run into situations where doing good may be in conflict with traditional regulations and legal formulae.

We will find ourselves in situations where contemporary Pharisees will try to put the Church into a straitjacket of narrow-mindedness and fundamentalism whether it involves our understanding of the Scripture or the liturgy or morality or something else. These are people who put the letter of the laws, regulations and rubrics before love. For them it is more important to observe the externals of rules than to be a loving person.

Week 23 | Tuesday

1 Cor 6:1-11

Today we hear of Christians at Corinth suing one another before pagan judges in Roman courts. A barrage of rhetorical questions betrays Paul’s anger over this practice, which he sees as an infringement upon the holiness of the Christian community. It seems that he is speaking of civil cases involving property rather than criminal cases which would rightly be dealt with by the state.

He refers to the secular courts as the “lawcourts of the unjust”. He is not actually accusing these courts of corruption but saying that the judges, who were pagans, had not, like the Christians, been “justified” by baptism in Christ. How then could “unjustified” people pass judgement on those who were “justified”, namely, the “saints”, the members of the Christian community?

The Corinthians should take their property cases before qualified Christians for settlement. In Paul’s day the Romans allowed the Jews to apply their own law in property matters, and since the Romans did not consider Christians as a separate class from the Jews, Christians no doubt had the same rights.

Those who have the vision of life that Christ gives are in a position, together with him, to “judge the (pagan) world” rather than be judged by it, especially in “trifling cases”. Paul is appealing to an eschatological prerogative promised to Christians: they are to share with Christ in the judgement of the world. A fortiori, they should be able to judge minor cases within their own community. And they will evaluate such situations from a different standpoint, namely, that of the Gospel. (Morality and law can come to very different conclusions.)

Instead, these cases are being brought before people for whose moral views the Church can have no real respect, namely, pagan judges. Or, to put it in another way, the most insignificant members of the church community would be in a better position to solve these cases among Christians. “You should be ashamed: is there really not one reliable man among you to settle differences between brothers and so one brother brings a court case against another in front of unbelievers?”

In fact, adds Paul, it is bad enough that they are having recourse to the law courts at all. Is it so bad to be cheated in relatively small matters when there are much more serious moral issues at stake (which will never find them before a court of law)? On the contrary, the real problem is that Corinthian Christians are cheating and committing moral wrongs to their brothers in the faith. And no one who does wrong can inherit the kingdom of God, which is a kingdom of love and justice, of compassion and forgiveness.

Paul gives a list of some of the things he is referring to: people who practise idolatry (especially where it is done to avoid persecution or to accommodate pagan family and friends); adulterers; catamites, that is, male prostitutes; sodomites, that is, those who indulged in homosexual behaviour, specifically anal sex; thieves and (almost the same thing) usurers (‘loan sharks’); drunkards; slanderers (destroying the good name of others even when the accusations are true); cheats of all kinds.

Three forms of sexual immorality are identified: adultery (sexual relations where at least one partner is married to someone else); male prostitutes and males who have sexual relations with other males. In Rom 1:26 Paul also includes females who practise homosexuality. All such behaviour is quite incompatible with being under the kingship of God. His kingdom cannot contain such people.

(We might say here that in Paul’s time the concept of homosexuality as a psychosocial ‘orientation’ would have been unknown. That there were people who habitually acted in this way would have been known. It is possible that the term ‘eunuch’ sometimes referred to such people. For Paul, however, men or women having sex with people of their own gender was seen as a violation of their nature.)

Before their conversion, the Corinthian “saints”, Paul says, were all like this once but now they have been “washed clean” by baptism, sanctified (made “saints”) by the Spirit, and justified, put right with God. This has been done - and here Paul uses a Trinitarian phrase - in and through “the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God”.

Today we are living in an age when people more and more are having recourse to the courts to “get justice”. Such cases so often end up in terrible bitterness and recrimination. This is especially true in the breakdown of marriage relationships or in other family disputes. All too often the ultimate goal is not justice but (sometimes enormous) financial gain.

The Gospel recommends that, where possible, such problems should be worked out between the persons involved or at least within the Christian community. The ultimate goal should, first of all, that true justice be done to all parties concerned followed by reconciliation and a healing of wounds. Courts should only be a last resort.

And, where Christians are concerned, they are not to be turned into instruments of punishment and recrimination.

Luke 6:12-19

We move on now to a different phase in Luke’s story and some very crucial sayings of Jesus.

Jesus, we are told, went up into the mountains to pray and spent the whole night there in prayer to God. Some might wonder what Jesus would have to pray about. Such a question may reveal a limited concept of what prayer is. It is not just a question of asking for things. It is even less a question of fulfilling a religious duty, “saying our prayers”.

Prayer is ultimately making contact with God, the beginning and end of all things. It makes a lot of sense that Jesus would have wanted to be in intimate contact with his Father and to have spent long periods with him. One of Jesus’ main concerns was that he do the will of his Father. Prayer was one way of making sure that there was completely harmony with that will.

Luke’s gospel shows Jesus at prayer more than any of the others. He also shows Jesus praying before all the important stages in his public life. As soon as this period of prayer was over, he called together his disciples and from them he chose twelve as apostles.

We know that among those who came to hear Jesus was a group, comprising both men and women, who regularly followed him and were committed to his teachings. Elsewhere we know of 72 such disciples who were sent out on a mission to do what Jesus was doing. After the ascension, we are told of 120 believers waiting for the coming of the Spirit. It is from these that Jesus chooses 12 to be Apostles, with a special mandate to continue his mission for the Kingdom. Although the order of names varies in the different gospels, the list is always headed by Peter while Judas is placed last.

We can sometimes be rather casual in our use of the terms ‘disciples’ and ‘apostles’ but they have very distinct meanings. The word ‘disciple’ is applied to any person who commits himself to be a follower of Jesus. The word ‘disciple’ comes from a word which means ‘to learn’. There is a passive element present, in the sense of the disciple sitting at the feet of the guru and learning from him. Jesus’ disciples regularly called him ‘Rabbi’ or teacher. ‘Apostle’ however has a much more active meaning. It refers to a person who goes out as an emissary, delegated to pass on information or commands or instructions to others on behalf of some authority.

In the Gospel, the word ‘apostle’ first applies to the twelve people who were especially chosen by Jesus to hand on his message. They would, after the departure of Jesus, become the foundation stones of the new community. In them would be invested the integrity of the original message and it would be up to them to interpret its acceptable developments. They were the beginnings of what we call today the “magisterium”, the teaching body of the Church responsible for the maintenance of the integrity of the Gospel message.

In this, as in all the lists of the Apostles, the first person listed is Simon, whose name is now changed to Peter. (In Matthew, the change is made at Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah, Matt 16:18.) There are variations of the Apostles’ names in all the lists. Bartholomew here seems to be the same as Nathanael in John (cf. 1:45) and is associated with Philip. Matthew seems to correspond to Levi (cf. Mark 2:13ff.). James, son of Alphaeus, is probably the same as James the younger, not the brother of John (Mark 15:40). The other Simon is called a Zealot. This could be either to describe his religious zeal or indicate his membership in the party of the Zealots, a Jewish revolutionary group violently opposed to Roman rule. Judas, the son of James is another name for Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). Also known as Jude to distinguish him from the other Judas, who always appears last in the lists. ‘Iscariot’ may mean that he comes from Kerioth. The town Kerioth Hezron was about 19 km south of Hebron and appears in the Old Testament (Joshua 15:25; Jeremiah 48:24).

We know, of course, that one of the chosen failed utterly and betrayed his Master. He was replaced by Matthias. Later, too, Paul - who never saw the pre-resurrection Jesus - would be called to be an Apostle. And the term would also be applied to a few others in the New Testament, e.g. Barnabas, a missionary colleague of Paul.

Secondly, however, the word ‘apostle’ applies to every baptised Christian. All of us, one way or another, are called to pass on the Gospel message so that others can hear and respond. There are many ways we can do this. One thing, though, is clear; it is not enough for us to be simply disciples, passive followers.

Immediately following the call of the Twelve comes what is really Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount. Significantly, for him it is going to take place in a plain, down on the ground in the midst of all the people. So his version is sometimes known as the “Sermon on the Plain”. It somehow indicates the humility of Jesus and his closeness to the people while Matthew uses the more biblical concept of a mountain as the place where God reveals himself.

Jesus is surrounded by all his disciples, his newly chosen apostles, and a huge crowd from Judea and Jerusalem, from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, including both Jews and non-Jews. They all came to listen to Jesus and to be healed. And they were all eager to touch him physically because a certain power went out from Jesus and brought healing to all.

Let us then hear today the call of Jesus, first to be his disciples, totally committed to accepting and assimilating his message; second, to accepting the responsibility to spread the Gospel actively through the way we live our lives, through the way we speak, and through the relationships we establish with people; thirdly, let us reach out and touch Jesus so that we may experience his healing wherever we need it.

Week 23 | Wednesday

1 Cor 7:25-31

Today’s reading comes from a longer passage in which Paul deals with various questions about marriage and celibacy which had been put to him by the Christians of Corinth.

In the full passage (the whole of chapter 7) Paul makes three main points:

In general, people should remain in the state of life they were in when they became Christians;

Celibacy is a higher call than marriage and spiritually more rewarding;

Marriage is acceptable for those who cannot otherwise observe chastity.

In today’s reading Paul is clearly speaking to virgins and widows and answering a question about the desirability of a Christian remaining celibate.

In giving his reply, he makes it perfectly clear that here he is expressing his own personal opinion and not giving Jesus’ or the Church’s teaching on the matter. He is not dealing with a matter of moral right or wrong. Even so, he believes he is writing under divine inspiration and that what he advises is the better course of action. Moreover, he speaks from the experience of one who is himself, with God’s help, faithfully observing a celibate life.

His general advice is first that, under the pressures of an immoral and hostile environment in which the Christians for the most part find themselves, people should remain in the state they are in now. His advice is to be understood as applying to the particular circumstances in which the Corinthians are at present living and is not to be understood as having a general application.

So, men who are married should remain married; on the other hand, those who are not yet married should remain single.

However, if a young man or woman does decide to get married, there is no wrong in that. At the same time, Paul warns them that he foresees trouble in their married life. This is not a reflection on the characters of those who got married but a warning that a faithful married life might be difficult in the pagan and immoral environment in which they lived and where they were liable to suffer persecution for their faith. Moreover, in times of persecution, it could be difficult for a couple to take care of each other or even to remain together.

It is not clear whether Paul himself was ever married and it is possible his present celibate situation might have been due to a marriage which he found incompatible with his vocation as a wandering apostle. (It is more likely that he was married at some stage; celibacy was not an admired state among Jews and we need to remember, too, that Paul had been a Pharisee, setting an example for other Jews.)

“Time is growing short,” says Paul. This may be a reference to the second coming of the Lord or it may be just a general statement that there is not much time in which to do the Lord’s work, especially if there is a threat of persecution (and the early Christians found themselves constantly harassed by both Jews and Christians). Attention should rather be focused on the living of the Christian life and on the love and service of the Lord and the needs of the Christian community in its work of giving witness to the Gospel.

Everything else the Christians did should be subordinated to this primary concern of their Christian life. So, putting it rather strongly, Paul urges

the married to live as if they were not married,

those who are grieving as if they were not grieving,

those who are enjoying life to remember that it may not last,

those who are tied up in acquiring ownership of things to realise that nothing really belongs to anyone,

those who have to deal with the world around them not to get too caught up in it.

It is a warning of the transitoriness of life. “I say this,” Paul reminds the Corinthians, “because the world as we know it is passing away.”

In other words, we should not cling too tightly or give too much of our energies to relationships, activities and things which sooner or later we will have to let go of. They must never become ends in themselves.

Generally speaking, Paul’s advice is still sound. People are still called both to celibacy and to marriage. Marriage responds to a need that most people have; nature, in its concern for the preservation of the species, has seen to that. Celibacy, for the majority, is not what they feel called to. Yet, apart altogether from those who adopt it for religious reasons, there are many who choose to remain celibate.

The Church - together with other religions - has seen the call to celibacy as allowing a more complete commitment to the direct service of God. In that sense, it is a “better” or “higher” calling in itself. It also indicates that it is possible to live a full and enriched life without being sexually active. This is less a matter of supreme sacrifice than an expression of a special freedom.

But that does not at all mean that the celibate is necessarily a “holier” or better person than those who are married. Both are vocations and through both the Gospel can be lived to the full. Both bring their rewards and both at times require great sacrifices to be made.

The question is not which is better in itself but to which way God is calling me to love and serve him.

Paul’s own life and the witness of many religious priests, brothers and sisters as well as of many others who choose de factocelibacy makes it clear that celibacy offers a level of freedom for greater service to a larger number. As Thomas Merton put it: “Belonging to all because belonging to none.”

But it cannot be overemphasised that the married couple also makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to both society and the Christian community through the family life it nurtures and its contribution to the future of our society.

Let us ask God today that each one of us be faithful to the particular way in which he has called us to serve him.

Luke 6:20-26

Today we begin what is known as Luke’s ‘Sermon on the Plain’ which more or less parallels Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. Luke’s is much shorter but both begin with the Beatitudes and end with the parable of the house builders. Some of what is found in Matthew’s Sermon is found elsewhere in Luke as Matthew’s ‘Sermon’ it consists of disparate sayings of Jesus gathered into one place. Luke also omits Matthew’s specifically Jewish material which would not have been relevant to his Gentile readers.

The Sermon can be summarised as follows:

An introduction of blessings and woes (20-26)

The love of one’s enemies (27-36)

The demands of loving one’s neighbour (37-42)

Good deeds as proof of one’s goodness (43-45)

A parable on listening to and acting on the words of Jesus (46-49).

Similar to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Luke begins the Sermon on the Plain with his version of the Beatitudes. But there are striking differences. Whereas Matthew has eight (some would say seven) Beatitudes, Luke has four “Blesseds” and four contrasting “Woes”. As is typical of his uncompromising style when it comes to following Jesus, the language of Luke is much more direct and hard-hitting and it may well be closer to what Jesus actually said.

Matthew’s Beatitudes propose a set of attitudes which reflect the spirit of the Kingdom, qualities to be found in the truly Christian and human life. Luke, on the other hand, speaks of material conditions in this life which will be overturned. Later in this gospel, this is illustrated graphically in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16:25).

Luke also has Jesus speak in the second person: “Blessed are you” and “Woe to you” rather than in the third person as Matthew does (”Blessed are those who…”). Nor does he speak of the “poor in spirit” but of “you who are poor” and he certainly means the materially poor.

He goes on to say how blessed too are “you who are hungry; you who weep; you who are hated and who are rejected and marginalised and whose name is regarded as evil” because of their connection with Jesus. Undoubtedly Matthew’s Beatitudes can be read to consider just ‘spiritual’ poverty and a hunger for ‘righteousness’, which in fact are also a form of real poverty and real hunger but Luke is a gospel for the materially poor and distressed and we must be careful not to turn our focus away from them. That is why he has Jesus born in poverty and dying naked and destitute (even of his ‘friends’).

Jesus tells those who are poor and hungry and abused to rejoice when that happens and “dance for joy”. There are two reasons:

because their reward will be “great in heaven” and

because that is the way the prophets in the past were treated (and the way Jesus the Prophet will also be treated).

At a first reading, it seems like a classical example of religion as the ‘opium of the people’: Be happy that you are having such a hard time now because there is a wonderful future waiting for you in the next world. It was the message that Karl Marx mocked the capitalist-ruled churches of preaching to the exploited ‘proletariat’.

And the second part is not likely to go down well in our contemporary developed world. “”Woe to you who are rich [he can’t be serious!], you have received your comfort already.” “Woe to you who are full, because you will be hungry; woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep; woe to you who are spoken well of. That is how they treated the false prophets.”

How are we to understand these sayings which turn our common worldview upside down? I think they have to be seen in the light of the Kingdom, in the kind of society that Jesus came to set up, a society based on mutual love and sharing and support. A Kingdom for this world and not just the next. The coming of such a society could only be good news for the poor and destitute (material and otherwise), for those suffering from hunger (physical and otherwise), for those depressed by deep sorrow and for those abused and rejected for their commitment to Jesus and his Way.

On the other hand it would not be good news for those self-focused people who amass material wealth at the expense of others, who indulge in excessive consumption of the world’s goods, who live lives centred on personal hedonism and pleasure, and who feed off the envy and adulation of those around them. There is really no place for such people in the Kingdom. To enter fully into the Kingdom they have to unload all these concerns and obsessions and let go. Instead of focusing on what they can get; they will focus on what they can share of what they have.

A clear example is of the rich young man in the Gospel. How rich he was - and yet how sad he was! Compare him with Zacchaeus, whom we will be meeting later on.

Week 23 | Thursday

1 Cor 8:1-7, 11-13

Paul now moves on to another local problem for the Christians of Corinth - the question of eating food offered to idols.

The New American Bible has a useful note on the issues which are at stake:

The Corinthians’ second question concerns meat that has been sacrificed to idols; in this area they were exhibiting a disordered sense of liberation that Paul here tries to rectify. These chapters contain a sustained and unified argument that illustrates Paul’s method of theological reflection on a moral dilemma. Although the problem with which he is dealing is dated [namely, eating food offered to idols], the guidelines for moral decisions that he offers are of lasting validity.

Essentially Paul urges them to take a communitarian rather than an individualistic view of their Christian freedom. Many decisions that they consider pertinent only to their private relationship with God have, in fact, social consequences. Nor can moral decisions be determined by merely theoretical considerations; they must be based on concrete circumstances, specifically on the value and needs of other individuals and on mutual responsibility within the community. Paul here introduces the theme of “building up” (oikodome, ‘oikodomh), i.e., of contributing by individual action to the welfare and growth of the community. (See also 1 Cor 14; Rom 14:1-15)

The topic - meat sacrificed to idols - is immediately introduced. This refers to meat which had been offered in pagan temples to idols. Meat left over from a sacrifice might be eaten by the priests, as well as by the offerer and his friends at a feast in the temple or sold in the public meat market. (At the site of ancient Corinth, archaeologists have discovered two temples containing rooms apparently used for pagan feasts where meat offered to idols was eaten. To such feasts Christians may have been invited by pagan friends.) Some Christians felt that if they ate such meat, they participated in pagan worship and thus compromised their testimony for Christ. Other Christians did not feel this way.

Today’s passage begins with a rather abstract and vague statement which makes one wonder where Paul is leading us. In fact, he is enunciating a principle of the very greatest importance for our living together as Christians and one that we neglect at our peril.

Paul opens with an apparently well-known slogan: “All of us have knowledge.” In Greece, knowledge was felt to be everything but Paul says that it can make people arrogant. What really builds people up, he says, is love (a central theme of this letter). Knowledge without love is barren. People equipped with much knowledge may not have a real understanding of what life is about.

The truly wise person - like Socrates - above all knows what he does not know. One is reminded of those people on the TV programme “Mastermind” who had encyclopaedic knowledge about all kinds of things but as persons may have been quite inadequate in coping with life.

Pure knowledge can lead to arrogance and a feeling of superiority; love, on the other hand, builds up. Better a person filled with genuine love and theologically ignorant than a topnotch theologian without a trace of love.

The person who loves and, in particular, the person who loves God “is known by God”, that is, has a direct experiences God’s love and thus knows how to relate with others. This is the only knowledge really worth having.

It serves as an introduction to a question which was very relevant to the Christians of Corinth, namely, the eating of food which may have been offered to idols. In itself, this is clearly not a problem for people in most of the Western world but it can still be a matter of conscience in Asia and Africa. (One thinks, for instance, of the food involved in ‘ancestor worship’ in China which was at the heart of the ‘Rites Controversy’. The custom still survives and Christians can now be involved.)

The question for the Corinthians then was: Should Christians eat such food or not? Would they be compromising their Christian faith by taking this food? Could they accept invitations to eat such food in a pagan house or temple?

Some Christians, especially converts from a former pagan life, felt that by eating this meat they were taking part in idol worship and were compromising their Christian faith. Others, however, including Paul and perhaps others with a Jewish background, did not feel that way at all.

Paul gives a very nuanced answer but one which we should read carefully: In principle, enlightened Christians are completely free to decide for themselves, but they must avoid leading astray other Christians who are not yet liberated from their pre-conversion ideas. In other words, as he has already said, knowledge alone is not enough for a good decision; love of neighbour must also be taken into account.

Paul first enunciates some of his own convictions about the issue.

There is really no need to worry about food offered to idols because idols do not represent anything. There is only one God. The rest are pure fakes. Indeed there seem to have been many so-called gods in the Greek and Roman pantheons which were worshipped by thousands of people but the Christian knew that they had no real existence whatever.

For Paul, as for us, there is only “one God, the Father, from whom all things come and for whom we exist”. And “there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things come and through whom we exist”. These statements are found in different formulations throughout Paul’s letters.

Nevertheless, continues Paul, the Corinthian Christians have to acknowledge that among them there are many converts who have not completely shaken off their old superstitions. While they have abjured the worship of idols, they still have a feeling that they are somehow real. And they are inclined to think that the food they see offered to idols is being offered to something real. If, during a feast following worship in a temple, they are invited to share in the food, they feel they are taking part in idol worship and have sinned.

Others, like Paul himself, do not feel this way at all. They know that the idol has no existence and that for them there is no real worship involved with a statue in a temple. The meat, whether it is at a temple feast or on sale in the market place, can be eaten with impunity by Christians.

However, Paul warns that those who, like Paul himself, feel ‘liberated’ in this matter must be careful not to become a stumbling block, a source of scandal to their more sensitive brothers and sisters. If the latter see a brother or sister dining together with people in a temple and eating food that has just been offered to an idol, may they not be tempted to think that it is alright to eat this meat when, in their weakness, they still attribute some reality to these idols? In which case, they may further be led to believe that worshipping idols is acceptable.

In this way one could bring about the spiritual destruction of a weaker brother or sister. The weak Christian could be influenced by the example of the stronger Christian and, even though he felt it to be wrong, would eat the meat offered to an idol.

The weaker brother may be persuaded to eat but afterwards would be filled with guilt for doing something he believed was quite wrong and against his Christian faith. What is worse, if they did this often enough, they might blunt their consciences and continue to do something they still felt in their heart of hearts was not right.

In such a situation, it is the “stronger” brother who has sinned. A weak conscience is wounded by eating meat offered to idols. The result may be moral tragedy. There is a sin against Christ, who is present in the weaker brother, and it could break the unity of the members of the body (the church).

So Paul has made his own decision in this matter. Even though he himself has no problems about eating such meat, he has resolved never to eat meat ever again rather than be a source of scandal to a weaker member of the community. Paul says he will not hurt the brother’s feelings and he will abstain from something which in itself has nothing to do with his loving and serving his Lord.

There is a very important lesson for all of us here. Certainly principles, laws and rules are very important and in general they should be observed. But there is one over-riding principle - and Paul mentions it - and that principle is love, that is, a sensitive and empathic caring for the well-being of the brother or sister. The not-eating of meat on such occasions was a small price to pay for a brother’s or sister’s peace of mind.

In our Church today, for instance, there are people who still have not fully come to terms with changes, new ways of seeing things, which were introduced by the Second Vatican Council. To take one small example, there are people who still insist on eating fish on Fridays, even though they know it is not now compulsory to abstain from meat. There are also those who want to receive Communion on the tongue and kneeling down. For many others, receiving in the hand and standing makes much more sense and is closer to the ancient customs of the Church.

In the long run, though, it is not an issue to be fought over (though it may be discussed). By being adamant over not eating fish on Friday or taking Communion in the hand we may drive a brother or sister away who still feels scruples about touching the Eucharistic bread, something they were sternly warned about in the past.

This does not mean that we should be adopt an attitude of indifference that one way is as good as another. People do need to be formed to help them understand the mind of the Church in such matters.

In the meantime, we must carefully distinguish between matters where we can in no way compromise. On marginal issues, however, we need to follow Paul’s example of being flexible. The ultimate aim is to bring all together in union with Christ present in each one. (The issue is dealt with at greater length in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, chap. 14, a passage, for some reason, not read in our Weekday liturgy.)

Luke 6:27-38

For many people, even those who identify themselves as Christians, this may be one of the most difficult passages in the Gospel. It seems to express an idealism that is totally unrealistic and unattainable.

We live today in a world of great violence, of terrorism, of increasing litigation - suing and counter-suing, violence and murder, of vicious vendettas often stirred up in the tabloid press and other media, the horror of terrorist attacks on the innocent. Are these things not to be avenged?

Where do Jesus’ words fit in? It may be worth noting that the passage (in the original - not in today’s reading) begins: “I say this to you who are listening.” In order to understand what Jesus is really saying to us, we have to put aside our prejudices and assumptions and really listen to what he is saying. This passage, in particular, is one where we are likely to react emotionally.

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly.” We may feel that to follow this teaching is to try something which is totally beyond our capacity, that it would require a tremendous amount of will-power and that it would only encourage those people to behave even worse. In the Old Testament hatred of evildoers is presumed to be the right attitude to have. But Jesus is extending love to the enemy and the persecutor.

This is the core of Jesus’ teaching, which he himself practised. The Golden Rule which is often expressed as “Do not do to others what you would not want them do to you” is expressed here in positive terms.

The first big hurdle is the word “love”. For us it is a very emotional word, implying both affection and intimacy. For us to “love” is often to “be in love with”, to “be attracted to”. But Jesus is not telling us to be in love with our enemies. He is not even telling us to like them. The Greek verb which the gospel uses is agapao(’agapaw) from which the noun agape (’agaph) comes. Agape[pronounced ‘ah-gah-pay’] is a special kind of love. It is not the physically-expressed love of lovers nor is it the love of close friends. It is rather an attitude of positive regard towards other people by which I wish for their well-being.

This, in fact, is the love that God has for us. It is a one-sided love in the sense that a return is not expected. God reaches out in infinite love to every single person without exception. God wishes every person to experience that love; God wishes the fullest well-being of every single person. That love of his is often not returned; it is often rejected or ignored.

But it continues unabated, like the father in the story of the prodigal son waiting for his boy to come back. The father continued to love his son even in his lowest moments of debauchery and degradation. It was the same with the people who were nailing Jesus to the cross. He prayed for them, for their being forgiven and that they might come to a realisation of just what they were doing.

In this sense, loving our enemies seems altogether reasonable. And not only not impossible but really the only thing to do.

Who are our “enemies”? First of all, they are not our enemies in the sense that we hate them or want to harm them. In that sense, Christians should have no enemies. Rather, they are people who are hostile to us. They want to harm us, take revenge on us, even destroy us, or whatever.

There are two ways we can deal with such people. We can set out to do more harm to them, to take revenge on them, or try to wipe them out completely. Or we can try and work to turn them round.

Our problem is that we tend to focus too much on ourselves and our own immediate needs and overlook the needs of others. To love as God loves is to focus more on others. We can only do this if we have a strong inner sense of security and self-acceptance. Then we are not too worried about what people say about us or do to us.

And then, too, we can turn our attention much more to the one who is hating or harming. We will begin to ask why do they have to act in this way. What is hurting inside them that drives them to such behaviour? Already we are just by thinking in this way beginning to care for our enemy and beginning to love him or her.

And is not this a much better solution to the problem? To bring peace back into that person’s life and initiate a healing process in them and between them and me.

Jesus is not at all asking us to do something “unnatural”. We do not naturally want to hate or be hated. We want to love and to be loved. We see many parts of the world where - for years - there has been a process of hatred and retaliation in a never-ending spiral of vengeance and loss of life.

The only way to break this cycle is to follow Jesus’ advice. It is not a lose-lose or lose-win situation; it is a win-win situation where everyone benefits.

Perhaps words of the late Mother Teresa are appropriate here:

“Love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me.”

To put Jesus’ teaching into effect is not a matter of strengthening our will to do something very difficult but to change our conventional thinking at the deepest level, to see things his way. Once we do that, it becomes much easier.

Jesus’ application of this teaching also has been the subject of much mockery. “To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too.” In a world where macho reigns, this is just too much. Only wimps would follow Jesus’ advice because they are afraid to do anything else.

Schwarzenegger and Stallone know what to do in such cases: mow them down with an automatic machine gun.

Again, it is a question of seeing things from Jesus’, that is, God’s viewpoint. Turning the other cheek, as it is presented here, is not at all an act of weakness. It requires great courage and great inner strength and an awareness that the one who strikes is the one who is really weak. It is easy to lash out at another person by word or act. It is easy to hit back; it is almost an instinctive reaction but it is not the truly human response.

To hit back is to reduce oneself to the same level as one’s attacker and it solves nothing in the long run. Deliberately and calmly not to hit back is to refuse, in Eric Berne’s words, “to play the other person’s game”. It is to break the cycle and change the level of the playing field and move it to a higher level - the level of mutual respect and human dignity.

Jesus set the example when he was struck on the face during his trial. During the whole degradation of the Passion his dignity shines out in contrast to the pathetic posturings of his judges and tormentors. This was the spirit that guided Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King and which is behind all movements devoted to active non-violence.

Jesus sets the principle: “Treat others as you would like them to treat you.” You do not want to be hated or struck so you refuse, no matter what happens, to hate or strike another person. “If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect?” No, we will not react simply in the way others deal with us.

As followers of Christ, we see things in a completely different way and we want to behave differently. We believe that not only do we personally benefit from following Jesus’ way but that others too will benefit and may even come to our point of view.

Finally, Jesus calls us to follow the model of God himself: “Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate.” In Matthew’s gospel it is, “Be perfect as…” The meaning is the same: our perfection consists in our empathetic reaching out in compassionate agape to every single person.

And, through us, the compassion of God can then be experienced by people.

We are not to judge or condemn persons (although we may be asked and required to give an objective and discerned evaluation of a person’s behaviour or fitness for some task or position). And we are to forgive. Then we will not be condemned and will in turn receive forgiveness.

The emphasis is on reaching out to others rather than gathering for ourselves, being turned in on our little, insecure selves. “Give, and there will be gifts for you.” Jesus put this graphically when he told us to give not only our cloak to someone asking for it but our tunic as well. Given that the poor in those days only had two garments, that would leave the donor totally naked!

But that is the point: the one filled with the spirit of Christ has nothing to lose, nothing to be ashamed of. Life consists in what we are able to give and not what we can get. “The amount you measure out is the amount you will be given back.”

And that, above all, applies to agape. Everyone can give an endless supply of that.

Week 23 | Friday

1 Cor 9:16-19, 22-27

Paul speaks today of his calling to be an apostle of the Gospel. It is not a privileged position he boasts about because it is a commission he has received from the Lord. “Woe to me if I do not proclaim the Gospel!” It is not a task which he has taken up of his own accord in order to get some personal gain; rather it is a responsibility that has been given to him. It is a call to serve, not to dominate.

Is there no reward then? “It is this: in my preaching, to be able to offer the Good News (Gospel) free, and not insist on the rights which the Gospel gives me.” Paul’s reward in preaching is not material gain of any kind but the claim that he has preached to the Corinthians without charge and has not taken advantage of the rights he deserves as a missionary.

Those rights were understood to include food and drink, shelter and some monetary recompense for bringing the Gospel message. But he does not see his reward in these things and foregoes them. Earlier he had argued eloquently for the right as an apostle to be supported by the community and, even like Peter and other apostles, to have a wife accompanying him. But he has set aside all these rights and supported himself by working with his own hands. (We know he was a tent maker.)

So, while on the one hand, he is not beholden to anyone, on the other, “I have made myself the slave of everyone” so as to win as many as possible over to the Gospel. Not only did Paul not use his right to material support in preaching the Gospel but he also deprived himself - curtailing his personal privileges and social and religious rights - in dealing with different kinds of people. He had only one goal in mind - to bring people to the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ and to hear the Good News.

In a famous phrase he says, “I have made myself all things to all in order to save some at any cost.” Immediately before this [but omitted in our reading] he had said, “To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak.” By ‘weak’ he meant those who were religiously and morally weak. Hence, as we saw yesterday, he declined to eat meat offered to idols so as not to upset or scandalise those still immature in their Christian faith.

And his only motive for doing this is “for the sake of the Gospel”, so that by sharing it with as many people as possible, he himself might also share in its promises - the fullness of life promised by Jesus.

In the final paragraph, Paul uses images from contemporary athletics to describe his work as an apostle. The Corinthians were very familiar with the athletics in the local Isthmian games, which were held in Corinth every second year and were second only to the Olympic games.

So Paul compares himself to a runner going all out to be the winner in a race where only one can win the wreath of victory. Athletes go into strict training and make all kinds of sacrifices just to win a laurel wreath which will wither in a few days; the prize the Christian pursues lasts for ever. He does not mean to imply that in the Christian race there is only one winner but that one should go all out as if that were the case. He has a definite goal - he does not beat the air aimlessly but severely disciplines himself so that his bodily self will serve the goals he wants.

It would be tragic, he says, if having been a proclaimer of the Good News, he did not live up to its requirements himself and so be disqualified at the end.

We, too, each in our own way, have been called to proclaim the Gospel through our station in life. It is an inbuilt element of our being Christian, not something that is an optional accessory. We do it both by word and action and we do it all the time wherever we are, with whomever we find ourselves to be.

We do not do it for monetary gain or for some other motive of personal profit. The only reward - and that is what makes it worthwhile - is to become more like Christ every day. There is nothing else in life that will bring greater satisfaction, peace and joy.

Paul had this experience; let us pray to have it too.

Luke 6:39-42

In Matthew the parallel passage today is addressed to the Pharisees but in Luke it is addressed to the disciples.

Jesus makes two points:

The blind cannot lead the blind. The disciple, left to himself, does not know very much and depends on his teacher. But, once he is fully trained and has learnt everything he can from his teacher, then he becomes an extension of his teacher. He shares the knowledge and wisdom of his teacher and can, in turn, be a guide to others.

This is something we all have to do: to listen carefully to what Jesus tells us and make it part of our own lives. Only then can we effectively lead others to him.

We have to be very careful about sitting in judgement on others. Jesus uses a graphic image of someone trying to remove a speck of dust from another person’s eye while there is a large splinter of wood in their own. How can we see properly to correct the vision of our brother when our own vision is so distorted?

The faults we so easily see in others are often trivial in comparison with our own shortcomings. Of course, much of the energy we exert in putting down others (the main staple of our gossiping sessions!) is sub-consciously to compensate for the shortcomings we are all too aware of in ourselves. Instead of lifting ourselves up by changing our ways, we try to drag others down.

And, so often our judgements are based purely on external behaviour. We usually have no idea of the inner motives or intentions of other people or an awareness of their inability to behave otherwise than they do.

And, while we can be very ready with criticism behind people’s backs, we do not dare to say these things to their face. Yet, there may be times when we will be asked to give - as far as is possible - an objective evaluation of a person’s behaviour or their fitness for some responsibility. And, not infrequently, we will shy away from this responsibility.

Week 23 | Saturday

1 Cor 10:14-22

Paul today returns to the problem of Christians eating food offered to idols, while also participating in the Christian Eucharist.

He first warns them to stay away from all forms of idolatry. This is no empty warning. Most of the Corinthian Christians were recent converts from paganism and their old customs, coupled as they likely were, with superstitions fears could still attract them. In their daily lives they were surrounded by reminders of the paganism they had left: temples to Apollo, Asclepius, Demeter, Aphrodite and other gods and goddesses. The worship of Aphrodite, with its huge numbers of sacred prostitutes, would still be a strong temptation.

But he points out that the Christians have not been left with nothing to replace these former practices. They now have what we call the Eucharist.

There is the “blessing-cup” from which all the gathered community drinks and which is “a communion in the blood of Christ”, the blood poured out on the cross and something far more meaningful than the blood of sacrificed animals.

The original blessing cup was drunk at the Jewish Passover. At the Passover meal which was the Last Supper, Jesus had said over this cup as he gave it to his table companions, “Drink from it all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:27-28). And he had told his disciples to continue doing this in memory of his suffering, death and resurrection.

There is the bread that is broken which is “a communion with the body of Christ”. Again, at the Last Supper, Jesus had taken a loaf of bread from the table, had said a blessing over it and, as he broke and distributed it to his disciples, had said: “Take, eat: this is my body.”

Paul emphasises the significance of the one loaf which is broken and shared out among the celebrating community. “Though there are many of us, we form a single body because we all have a share in this one loaf.” It is again a communion in the Body of Christ, of which this community is now a part. It is a sacramental act of total identity of the community with Christ and of the members of the community with Christ and with each other. This is the source of their nourishment and Life.

This eating together of the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of bread and the loaf is the Christian sacrifice which more than replaces what the Corinthians have left behind in the pagan temples.

Paul indicates that what the Christians do is in many ways not unlike the Jews who also ate the meat of the animals offered in the Jerusalem Temple to God. It was also a form of communion with the Lord in the old covenant. The sacrificial rites in the pagan temples were also a form of ‘communion’ with the deity but meant little because those deities were no more than the wood or stone images from which their images were made.

Paul is warning the Christians that if they do eat meat sacrificed to idols, they should not eat it as part of the pagan worship. “You cannot take your share at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons,” he tells them. His words imply that some of the Christians who shared the Eucharistic table were also visiting the temples and even involving themselves in immoral behaviour there.

Comparing his words earlier, he makes a clear distinction between eating food offered to idols as a sharing or “communion” with the imagined god and eating that food when separated from the act of worship. He forbids the first because it involves idolatry and he allows the second because the food has no sacred value whatever, given that the object of worship is non-existent.

Paul’s warnings against involvement in idol worship might have seemed until recently fairly irrelevant to many Catholic communities in the West but it can still be a real problem in parts of Africa and Asia.

However, in the West too there are now several movements, loosely gathered under “New Age” and the like, which attract many Christians, especially those on the fringes of church life, and which do not seem compatible with the Gospel and participation in the Eucharist. Discernment is needed to judge which ones can be grafted into Christianity and which are opposed to it.

Paul’s words about the sharing of the cup and the one loaf also highlights an aspect of the Eucharist which is often lost by many, where “going to Mass” and “receiving Communion” are seen all too often as the private and devotional acts of an individual.

The Eucharist has no meaning except as a community and sharing celebration. It is not just a ‘receiving’ of Jesus into ‘my soul’. It is a ‘breaking of the one bread’ and a shared eating which emphasises the real presence of Christ not only in the bread and wine but, even more importantly, in the celebrating community. In our next reading we will see that to neglect the community during the celebration of the Eucharist is a kind of sacrilege.

Luke 6:43-49

In our final reading from Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus speaks of the qualities of a genuine disciple. The goodness of every disciple comes from within and is not to be measured merely by his external behaviour. A really healthy tree cannot produce bad fruit; nor can an unhealthy tree produce genuinely good fruit.

At the same time, consistently good behaviour is a sign of a healthy interior. “Every tree can be told by its own fruit” and “A man’s words flow out of what fills his heart”. We need to focus our energies on our interior spirit. If that is good, the rest will take care of itself.

Another measure of the good disciple is how he listens and acts on the words of his Master. To “listen” includes hearing, understanding, accepting, and assimilating into one’s self the Master’s teaching and vision. The behaviour then follows naturally, spontaneously and, to a large extent, effortlessly.

Such a person is compared to a man who has built his house on a strong foundation. When floods came, the house stood firm. On the other hand, the one who listens but does not take in and so does not act on what he has heard is like a man who built his house on a poor foundation. When the floods came, it collapsed.

This parable needs to be read in the context of the early Church where, in time of persecution, some stood firm because their faith was deeply rooted, while others fell away at the first sign of pressure.

Even if there is no overt persecution of the Christian faith where we live, we live in times which are very threatening to a genuine Christ-centred life. Without a sure foundation, it is very easy to be enticed away to a life of materialism, consumerism, hedonism, and individualism. Because of their superficial attractiveness and their being indulged in by so many around us, these things are often far more insidious than outright attacks on our faith.

In fact, experience shows again and again that nothing strengthens people’s faith more than open persecution. Most of us live in a much more dangerous environment, an environment not of torture and imprisonment but of advertising and media hype promising untold happiness and pleasure, where the vision of the Gospel is ignored or seen as irrelevant. We need to have very sure foundations to live in such a world.

Week 24 | Monday

1 Cor 11:17-26, 33

We have today a very important Eucharistic text and one which is just as relevant now as it was in Paul’s Corinth.

From reports that Paul has heard, the gatherings of the Christian community are doing more harm than good. And Paul has two main complaints to make.

First, when they supposedly gather together as a community there are factions among them. He has already spoken of this earlier in his letter where he mentioned that some were siding with himself and others with Apollos or other evangelisers. This made no sense because the only source of their faith was Jesus Christ, and others, like Paul and Apollos, were merely his spokespersons for the one Jesus and with the same message.

However, Paul indicates here that there may be one advantage in such divisions: they help distinguish those who are genuine from those who do not have the true spirit of the Gospel. In that sense, such divisions are always likely to arise and are probably inevitable.

His second accusation is more serious but not unrelated. The purpose of these gatherings was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, but, because of the shameful way they carried on, it could not really be called a Eucharist.

The liturgical celebration was preceded by a communal meal, soon to be known as an agape (’agape, pronounced ‘ah-gah-pay‘) meal. The word ‘agape’ means ‘love’ and is a word used constantly by Jesus to describe God’s unconditional and universal love for us and the love we ought to show for every single person, including enemies.

These meals were something like what we would call “pot luck” today. Everyone was expected to bring some food to be shared by all. Those who were better off would bring more and better quality food while those less well-off would obviously bring less or even nothing at all.

However, what was happening was that those who were bringing the best food (and drink) would arrive earlier and have it all consumed by the time the poorer members arrived. So that, as Paul observes, “one person goes hungry while another is getting drunk”. If they want to carry on like that, says Paul, they should do so in their own homes. By acting like this, they are showing no respect for the community and causing embarrassment to the poorer members.

To go on and celebrate the Lord’s Supper after such behaviour is little short of sacrilege and blasphemy. The Eucharist is the sacrament and sign of a loving community. A gathering, which is so obviously defective in love for its members, clearly does not recognise the real Body of Christ, which is the community. How then can it eat the sacramental Body of the Lord for whose real Body it shows no compassion or respect? In a later sentence, not included in our reading, Paul says: “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks judgement on himself.” The ‘Body’ here is the Body of the Risen Christ, the gathered community. To eat the Eucharistic Bread while depriving brothers and sisters of bread is to commit a sacrilege against Christ’s Body.

Paul then reminds the Corinthians of the tradition about the Lord’s Supper which he himself received from the Lord through those who handed the faith on to him. Although this letter was written well before the four gospels, there is a marked similarity between Paul’s version and that in the gospels, especially Luke (who, we remember, was a companion of Paul in his missionary journeys). It indicates the tradition was well established and in a definitive form from very early on in the Church’s existence. The description is very familiar to us from the Eucharist we celebrate today.

On the night of his being “handed over”, Jesus took a loaf of bread and gave thanks (the word ‘Eucharist’ comes from eucharistia(the Greek word for ‘giving thanks’). Giving thanks was also the practice at Jewish meals. Jesus then broke the bread to distribute it among his disciples and said: “This is my Body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.” The broken bread symbolises both the broken Body of Jesus, who died in love for us and the union of those who share from the one loaf.

All the important elements of the Eucharist are here: the single loaf, broken, to be shared by all; the giving thanks because of what God, in the human body of his Son, had done for us. And we are to continue doing what Jesus did at the Last Supper as a memorial of what he did. But, as Paul emphasises, this doing must be intimately linked with the life we live as a loving and caring community.

Jesus, at the end of the Passover supper, took the cup of wine. The red wine is the symbol of his blood, poured out on the cross; sacramentally, it is his blood. That blood is the seal on the “new covenant”, the new contract, as it were, between God and his people, who now embrace not just the Jews but peoples all over the world whatever their origins. “I will be your God and you will be my people.”

The drinking and sharing of the cup is also to be repeated as memorial of what God did for us in Jesus. So that every time “you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death”.

But it is not only proclaiming that death but the inner meaning of that death as a sign of God’s love, a love which we are to take into our own very being so that it flows out from us to all those around us. It is lives lived in mutual love that are the real sign that we remember what God did for us in Jesus.

The sacramental celebration is both an affirmation of what we wish to be and do and the source that makes it possible for us to make it happen.

Paul concludes by once again reminding the Corinthian Christians to wait for each other when they gather to share their agape-meal and celebrate their Eucharist. If the agape meal does not satisfy their hunger, then let them eat at home before or afterwards. To do otherwise is to make the meal a nonsense, and worse, a serious lapse in mutual love and care.

All of this we ourselves can take very much to heart.

Our Sunday Masses are not normally now connected to an agape meal, although many parishes do have ‘coffee mornings’ so that parishioners can get an opportunity to mingle and get to know each other after Mass.

But the main point Paul makes is that there is an indivisible link between what we do at the Eucharist and what goes on in our lives between our celebrations. This is something we can never forget.

Luke 7:1-10

After he had finished the Sermon on the Plain (although we do not necessarily have to think its represents teachings all given at one time) Jesus went into Capernaum, the base from which he operated when in Galilee. Almost immediately he is met with a request for healing but this one is somewhat different. It will set the stage for developments which will take place and be described later in the Acts of the Apostles (also by Luke).

The story concerns the slave of a centurion. A centurion was an army officer with - as his rank indicates - one hundred men under him. He was presumably attached to the Roman garrison in the town or one of Herod Antipas’ forces. The Roman military in general did not have a good reputation and Mel Gibson’s film ‘The Passion of the Christ’ does not altogether do them an injustice in portraying their cruelty and brutality. However, those in the Gospel do not appear in a bad light. This is a good example of the danger of stereotyping any group of people - something we are all very easily prone to do.

He was not necessarily a Roman but he was certainly not a Jew. He was a Gentile outsider. His slave, who was very dear to him, had fallen seriously ill. This, in turn, implies he treated his slave well. Undoubtedly, he had heard the stories of what Jesus had done by way of healing and wondered if his slave could also be helped.

However, as an outsider he did not dare to approach Jesus personally. He sent a delegation consisting of Jewish town elders. These are not the ‘elders’ mentioned during Jesus’ passion but simply respected members of the local Jewish community. In Matthew’s account, the centurion approaches Jesus himself. Luke having him go through influential Jewish friends sounds more plausible.

They apparently were only too willing to help because they said he was very friendly to the Jews and had even built a synagogue for them. The stage is being set for the story of Cornelius, also a soldier and the first Gentile Christian, in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 10:1ff.).

While Jesus was on his way to the house, the centurion immediately sent word that it was not necessary for Jesus to come personally. As a friend of Jews, he knew that a devout Jew, and especially a rabbi, could not enter the house of a Gentile. He did not want to be a source of embarrassment for Jesus.

“I am not worthy that you should come under my roof,” he said - words which we now use every time we prepare to approach the table of the Eucharist. Just as he himself felt unworthy to be approached by Jesus. He knew that Jesus had only to say a word and his slave would be made whole again.

He recognised the very special authority that Jesus had, an authority, in some respects, not unlike his own as an army officer. He had only to say “Go” to a soldier and he went; he only had to say “Do this” and it was done. Jesus could do the same.

Jesus is amazed at the man’s faith. “I have never found such faith, even in Israel.” Only twice in the Gospel is Jesus described as being amazed. This is caused by the faith of a Gentile; the other was caused by the unbelief of his townspeople in Nazareth (Mark 6:6).

When the delegation returned to the centurion’s house, they found that the slave was totally well again.

What strikes one so strongly in this story is the character of the centurion who contradicted every stereotype of the Roman soldier which the average person in Palestine would have had. He is kind and caring of his slave. He has contributed to the building of the local synagogue. He is extremely sensitive to Jewish customs and does not embarrass Jesus by approaching him directly. And, when Jesus offers to go to his house, he says that it is not necessary. He knows that Jesus, as a Jew, would become unclean by entering a Gentile house. He is a good example how wrong we can be in generalising about certain kinds or classes of people. He also clearly illustrates how a Gentile could be, as the early Church only gradually discovered, a worthy person to belong to the Christian community. In fact, this story prepares the way for Luke’s account later in the Acts of a centurion, Cornelius, being received as the first Gentile member of the Christian community (Acts chap. 10).

The key factor, of course, in this healing story is the faith of the Gentile, a faith which Jesus said he had never encountered even among many of his own people. Beginning with Cornelius, this experience will be repeated in the early Church as the first Christians, all Jews, begin to realise that the Gentiles too are being called to follow Christ and that their Spirit-filled faith can be as strong as that of any of them.

For us today it is a reminder that Jesus can reveal himself to the most unlikely persons and that we must never presume that a person is unfitted for the Christian life based on past behaviour or any other characteristics. God can call anyone and he does.

Let us, too, follow the example of the centurion in our confidence in God’s healing power in our lives.

Week 24 | Tuesday

1 Cor 12:12-14, 27-31

Paul moves on now to another issue in the Corinthian community: the question of “spiritual gifts” or “charisms” (charismata, carismata). Here too there were disputes among community members.

The gifts under discussion were granted to certain members of the community and were the signs by which the Spirit helped the community to function. We need to remember that the organisation of the communities at this stage was not very developed. The later hierarchical ministries we know now were still in the process of evolution. This led to a certain amount of confusion in the community and was the cause of some of the factional disagreements which were occurring. Some of the gifts were even disruptive, being rather eccentric in form. Clearly, there had to be a discernment between which were beneficial and which were not.

In this part of his letter Paul makes five points:

All the gifts come from the Spirit working in the community;

All the gifts, though given to individuals, are for the good of the whole community;

The importance of each gift is to be measured by its benefit to the community;

So, for instance, the gift of ‘prophecy’ is far more important than being able to ‘speak in tongues’, a gift the Corinthians apparently thought very highly of.

Love (agape) transcends and is present in all the genuine gifts and is in a class by itself. (This is dealt with in the famous ‘Hymn to Love’ in chap. 13 which we will be reading tomorrow.)

To illustrate what he wants to say, Paul uses the analogy of the human body. Although it is made of many different parts, each with its own functions, it is basically a single co-ordinated unit. So it is with Christ, says Paul. By ‘Christ’ here he means the Risen Christ which includes his new Body, the Church and each local church community. For Paul, Christians are bodily united with the Risen Body through their baptism and the common celebration of the Eucharist. The community becomes, in effect, the Risen Body of Christ of which he is the Head. Hence, the importance of its unity and mutual complementarity.

The source of unity is the Spirit of Christ in which all, both Jews and Greeks, citizens and slaves, were baptised and given that Spirit. In the community there can be no ethnic or social discrimination where the giving of the Spirit is concerned. “All are given to drink of the one Spirit.”

Paul now emphasises that a body is not to be identified with any one of its parts. This is what was happening in the Corinthian community where groups were giving excessive importance to the charism of one or other of their leaders, or to the gifts which some individuals were experiencing.

Continuing his analogy, he tells them that they, in their community, are the Body of Christ but, like a body, each one has a different role to play. He singles out three particular charisms as being of prime importance.

First of all, come the ‘apostles’. They are those who were specially and personally chosen by Jesus during his time among us to carry on his work of proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom. They were also to be witnesses of the resurrection. They are the founder members, the ‘pillars’ of the Church and the unique bearers of the tradition which Jesus handed on.

Next to them in importance come the ‘prophets’. The special role of the prophet is not to foretell the future. The prophet was any person through whom God wishes to communicate a message to a particular community. It might be an encouragement; it might be a warning. The prophet, unlike the apostle, is a ‘non-institutional’ figure and can appear at any time. Clearly, careful discernment is needed to distinguish the true from the false prophets. Because the message they give may be unpleasant to hear or may challenge the status quo, the prophet may not be welcome and even efforts made to get rid of him or her. At the same time, we ignore the message of the true prophet at our peril and at all times we need prophets to wake us out of our complacency.

Thirdly, there are the ‘teachers’, those whose gift was to form the community and to hand on the content and meaning of the tradition received from Jesus. Again, they make an indispensable contribution to the life and growth of the community.

After them come charisms of lesser crucial importance although they can greatly enrich the life of the community.

Some members had the gift of performing miracles, namely, actions which could not be explained by natural means. Their main function was to reveal the power of God working in the community and be spurs to a deeper faith. (As such, it does not really matter that a later age might have a natural explanation for what happened.)

The gift of healing was given to some and again was the means by which the Lord brought wholeness back into people’s lives.

‘Helpers’ are those who make charitable contributions or support the community in some other way; ‘leaders’ are those who do the administrative work and provide guidance on a practical level.

Lastly, there are those “with many languages”. It is not clear whether this means an actual ability to speak in different languages and dialects (quite useful in cosmopolitan Corinth) or whether it refers to making ecstatic utterances, the “gift of tongues”, under the impulse of the Spirit (and which needed interpretation by those gifted to understand their meaning).

These gifts are all spread among the community and not given to all or even to many. Not all can claim to be apostles, or prophets, or miracle-doers, or healers. That would result in a very lop-sided body. So, the gifts are many but the community is one.

It is also important to realise that this list is not meant to be exhaustive. There are hundreds of possible charisms and surely every single member in the community has a gift by which a positive contribution can be made to the life of the community. Everyone, in however small a way, can and should make a difference by their presence.

And, if we are to desire any gifts, let us seek those which are of greater benefit to the community and not just those which are more spectacular (like speaking in tongues) or seem to give higher status in the eyes of others.

However, in conclusion, Paul says that behind all these gifts lies something much more important, it is “the more excellent way”. We will see what that is tomorrow.

Luke 7:11-17

This story is only found in Luke. It is one of only three stories in the Gospel where Jesus is described as bringing a dead person to life. The most dramatic is the story of Lazarus told in John’s gospel. There is the also the story of the synagogue leader’s daughter although it is not categorically certain that she had actually died. She might have been in a coma or catatonic state.

In the thinking of the time, the scene is particularly sad. A woman, who has already lost her husband, has now lost her only son and the only means of her support. She is on the way to bury him.

The lot of the widow, in those days often a relatively young woman, was particularly difficult in a society where the married woman was no longer the responsibility of her own family and who, after the death of husband and children, was no longer the responsibility of her husband’s family either. She was largely left to her own devices in a society where social welfare of any kind was unknown.

Jesus himself is deeply moved at her plight. At this point, for the first time, Luke refers to Jesus as “Lord”, a title reserved for God himself. He approaches the litter (not a coffin as we know it) carrying the dead man, tells the bearers to stop and then orders the young man to rise up. As in other similar stories, the word “rise up” is the same as that used to describe the resurrection of Jesus. “I have come that they may have life.”

The reaction of the people around is one of awe and admiration. “A great prophet has risen among us and God has visited his people.” They had no doubts about the origin of what they had seen taking place; it was the work of God. Not surprisingly, the story spread like wildfire all through Judea and beyond. The episode prepares the way for Jesus’ response to the disciples of John the Baptist a little later (but which is not included in our Mass readings at this time).

This story should help us to look at our own situation and see, first of all, how alive we really are.

Let us look around and see how many people need to be lifted up and helped to find new life. Maybe we can do something for them.

Week 24 | Wednesday

1 Cor 12:31 - 13:13

A hymn to agape-love.

We have here probably one of the most quoted passages from Paul, if not from the whole Bible.
We have seen Paul speaking to the Corinthian Christians about the various gifts of the Spirit with which different people are endowed so that they can better serve the needs of the community in many different ways. He had been criticising them for laying too much emphasis on and even ambitioning the having of certain more “prestigious” gifts.
Using the analogy of the human body he had said that the overall unity of the community was more important than any one gift just as the unity of the body depended on its having a full complement of limbs and organs for it to function properly.

Today, however, he goes further and says that, above and beyond any gifts or ‘charisms’, there is “a more excellent way”. That way is the over-riding element of love. Love is not on the same level as the other gifts. Rather, it is one of the most evident signs of the presence of the Spirit of Christ in the community and its members.

‘Love’ here as in many parts of the New Testament translates the Greek word agape, a word with a very specific meaning. The word ‘love’ can mean many things and C S Lewis has written a book called The Four Loves, each one of which can be found in the scriptures. Let us just briefly describe three of these: eros, philia,and agape.

Eros describes physical, sensual love, the love of lovers sharing physical intimacies with each other. At its best, it is a genuine and very beautiful form of love which involves the total giving of two people to each through their bodies. Paul is not talking about this.

Philia is really the highest form of love. It is the love of friendship, where friendship implies a total mutuality and sharing between two people in a mutual self-giving to each other. It is the love of lovers at its best, the love of the happily married couple, and of friends who are deeply committed to each other. Sex may or may not be part of it. It implies an enduring relationship which may not be present in an eros situation. Again, Paul is not talking about this here.

Agape is reaching out to another person with a deep desire for that person’s total well-being and wholeness. It is the love of compassion and caring. It differs from philia in that it does not expect a return (though that may be given); it is a totally unconditional form of loving. It is the love that God reaches out to all creatures whether they return that love or not. In the First Letter of John we are told that God IS agape. It is a constituent of his very being. Agape is a form of love which desires the good of the other quite independently of that person’s lovableness. It is the love that God extends equally to every single person, irrespective of who they are or how they respond. So it is a love that can be extended even to enemies, criminals and those who want to destroy us. It is the love that Jesus showed for those who were nailing him to the cross. It is the love that Paul is speaking about here. It is a love which desires the good of the other and hence is then especially offered to those who lack it most.

(However, we might also add that a person cannot survive only on agape, the giving form of love. No one can remain permanently in a totally altruistic mode. At bottom whatever we do must ultimately be for our own good and wellbeing. What we really need for our wholeness is a true philia relationship. It is interesting that when Jesus asked Peter his three questions after the resurrection, “Simon, do you love me more than these?”, he used the verbs for both agape and philia. In fact, it may not be possible to show a great deal of agape unless we have a philia experience as part of our lives. We can live without eros but, when joined with philia, eros adds what we might call an incarnated dimension to our lives – although it is also the form of love most abused.

Paul speaks of the supremacy of agape over everything else we do or achieve. If our actions are not motivated by an agape love, then they are of no real value as far as our Christian life is concerned.
Using hyperbolic language, he gives four exaggerated examples of some of the gifts to be found in the community:

- the gift of eloquence, even to the point of being able to speak not only every earthly language but the language of angels;
- the gift of prophecy (in the sense we described it yesterday), the ability to understand all mysteries and “knowing everything” that can be known;
- a faith strong enough to move mountains (as Jesus said true faith could do);
- a generosity which would give away everything one has, even to offering one’s body in martyrdom.

To have any of these gifts in the highest degree could make one a prominent and highly respected person in the community. But if, at bottom, these things are not motivated by genuine love (agape), they are rated as nothing.

Speaking both positively and negatively, Paul now lists some of the qualities of this kind of agape love:

- It is patient and kind (Virtues apparently not very conspicuous in the Corinthian community.)
- It is never jealous. (Jealousy seems to be present in those Corinthians who ambition certain charisms rather than be satisfied with what they have.)
- It is never boastful or conceited. (Paul accuses the Corinthians of a certain arrogance which their overall moral behaviour in no way justifies.)
- It is never rude or selfish. (Paul mentions the divisive factions and also the selfish behaviour of some when celebrating the Lord’s Supper.)
- It does not take offence and is not resentful. (True agape is totally focused on the needs of the other and is not upset by hostility or rejection. Such inner resentment is a sign of an insecurity in oneself. The truly agape-love person cannot be offended because he or she is a person who totally accepts himself as he/she is.)
- It takes no pleasure in other’s sins but delights in the truth. (The reaction to the weaknesses of others is not delight nor judgement but compassion. True love also is never afraid of the truth but always wants to see it come to the surface. At the same time, the truly loving person will always speak the truth in love, being sensitive to the weaknesses of those for whom the truth can be very painful. We can speak the truth in a very unloving way.)
- It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes. (True love always wants to find the good in everyone. It is biased towards believing that people act in good faith. In spite of outward circumstances, it never loses the certain hope that the truth and the good must ultimately prevail. It is ready in the worst of times to hang in there and to believe in the ultimate goodness of people.)

Love alone, says Paul, outlasts everything else. Because love is part of God’s very nature; God is love. Loving is not just something God practises – it is a part of his very essence.

On the other hand, many of the church’s most highly prized gifts will eventually pass away. Paul mentions prophecy. There will come a time when it is no longer needed. The gift of speaking languages will not be part of the life to come. Knowledge, however wide, will eventually be shown to be so inadequate when we come face to face with the Infinite Source of all knowledge and wisdom. For “once perfection comes, all imperfect things will disappear”.

‘Perfection’ is a translation of the Greek word pleroma which means ‘fulfilment’, ‘completeness’, ‘maturity’. That ‘perfection’ will be realised when Christ comes at the end to bring all creation to himself to share in his glory.

Right now, says Paul, we are like children, talking like children, acting and arguing like children. We think we are adults but it is not really the case. We are like a man looking at his reflection in one of those polished metal mirrors of those days. The image can be seen but is somewhat blurred. But then, when the Lord comes, we will have the extraordinary experience of seeing God clearly face to face.

What I know now is so imperfect. But then “I shall know as I am known”. That is, I will know the Lord to the fullest extent possible for a human creature analogous to the unlimited way in which God knows me.
And so, Paul sums up by saying that in the end only three things will perdure: faith, hope and love (agape). We will not need faith when we are face to face with our infinite Creator. We will not need hope because every possible desire of our being will be fulfilled forever. But agape will remain. Face to face with God, we will be eternally bathed in that agape which pours from him and fills us with the happiness for which we were created.

Luke 7:31-35

Today’s passage follows immediately after the scene (not in our Mass readings) where Jesus answers the query from John the Baptist languishing in prison about whether Jesus is truly the Messiah. Jesus uses the occasion to speak words of high praise for John, “Of all the children born of women, there is no one greater than John”.

Jesus now criticises the cynicism and self-contradictory attitudes of those who reject both him and John. They have simply closed their ears and want to hear nothing and learn nothing. He compares them to children in a city square calling to their playmates. “When we played lively music for you, you would not dance; when we played funereal music, you would not mourn.”

This comparison Jesus applies to John the Baptist and himself. John led an austere life in the desert eating, as we are told elsewhere, only locusts and wild honey. They said he was mad and rejected him. Jesus came leading a highly convivial life, mixing with all kinds of people. They called him a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and other sinful people. He even invited a tax collector to be one of his twelve Apostles!

It was a no-win situation. When people are like that there is really nothing that can be done. Jesus concludes with the enigmatic statement, “Wisdom has been proved right by all her children.” Both John and Jesus could both be described as children of Wisdom, whose origin is God himself. Those who can see the hand of God in the lives of John and Jesus are also children of Wisdom. Those who adamantly refuse to see God are not.

It is important for us not to fall into such a trap. God speaks to us in so many ways and through so many people and situations. It is very easy to find ourselves excluding a priori the people or situations by which God is trying to reach us.

We cannot expect God to speak to us in ways which we find congenial. He may speak to us through a saint or a sinner. Through a conservative or a liberal. Through a man or a woman - or a young child. Through an old person or a young person. Through an educated or an illiterate person… Through a local person or a foreigner. Through a straight or gay person… Through a saint or a sinner. We have at all times to be ready to listen with an unprejudiced mind and heart.

Week 24 | Thursday

1 Cor 15:1-11

In these three final readings from the first letter to the Corinthians, we begin today the 15th chapter which discusses resurrection from the dead and its relationship to the resurrection of Christ as a core belief of our Christian faith.

In today’s reading Paul introduces the subject by reminding the Corinthians of the Gospel tradition which had been given to them and their need to be faithful to it.

The Gospel will be an instrument of their salvation only if they hold closely to what they had been taught by Paul, the one who first brought the Christian faith to them. To believe anything else would be to go down a road that leads to nowhere, it would mean they were “believing in vain”. This fidelity will be manifested in the way they lead their lives and, as we have seen, the behaviour of some of them had left much to be desired.

Paul summarises under two headings the core of Christian teaching he taught them. He emphasises that what he taught them was exactly the tradition which he had himself received and nothing else. Paul links himself directly with early Christian tradition. He was not its originator, nor did he receive it directly from the Lord. His source was other Christians. The verbs he uses are technical terms for receiving and transmitting tradition.

He first describes the core of that tradition in the following words:

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scripture (cf. the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24)

He was buried (proof that he had really died)

He was raised on the third day, also in accordance with the Scripture.

Secondly, he lists six times when the Risen Christ was seen by people, too many people for deception to be involved:

First to be mentioned is Cephas or Peter, an appearance mentioned by Luke (24:34) as happening on Easter Sunday itself.

Then there is an appearance to the “Twelve” recorded by Luke (24:36-53) and John (20:19-29) in their gospels. They are still called the “Twelve” even though Judas is no longer with them; however, Judas would be replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:15-26).

Paul next mentions a simultaneous appearance to more than 500 disciples, most of whom are still alive as he writes and so can witness to the truth of what he is saying. We are not sure when this apparition took place although it could possibly be that mentioned by Matthew just before his description of the Ascension (Matt 28:10,16-20). The appearance to this large group may be mentioned to help bolster the faith of those Corinthians who evidently had some doubts about the resurrection of Christ (cf. v.12).

Then he appeared to James. As this James is listed in addition to “all the apostles”, it would seem to exclude James, the son of Zebedee, or James, son of Alphaeus, and indicate James, a “brother” of Jesus mentioned by Matthew (13:55). This James, like the other “brothers” of Jesus, does not seem to have believed in Jesus before the resurrection (John 7:5) but afterwards is numbered among those disciples in the Upper Room after the resurrection (Acts 1:14). He later became the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13). There is no mention of this appearance in the New Testament.

The appearance to “all the apostles” could be that mentioned at the beginning of the Acts and before the Ascension and includes more than the Twelve already mentioned.

Last of all, the Risen Jesus appeared to Paul. The event is recorded no less than three times in the Acts when Paul (then Saul) was on his way to get rid of the Christians in Damascus. Paul describes this experience, maybe three years after the resurrection, in terms of an abnormal and totally unexpected birth.

Paul was not part of the original group of apostles. He had not lived with Christ as the others had. His entry into the apostolic office was not “normal”. Furthermore, at his conversion he was abruptly snatched from his former way of life (Acts 9:3-6).

He makes no distinction between the sort of apparition that took place on the Damascus road and the sort of apparitions of Jesus that took place between the resurrection and the ascension.

He is almost embarrassed to carry the title of ‘apostle’ and feels he is the least among them. After all, he had at one time used all his efforts to wipe the disciples of Christ from the face of the earth. In doing so he was persecuting Christ himself (cf. Acts 9:5). “I hardly deserve the name apostle,” he says. “But, by God’s grace, that is what I am” and he can say with truth that “the grace that he gave me has not been fruitless”. That ‘grace’ is the unmerited love of God offered and accepted by him.

The outcome is that Paul can say, without any boasting or exaggeration, that, with God’s grace working through him, he has worked harder than any other evangeliser. The record of his achievements in the Acts as well as in his Letters gives ample testimony to that claim. In spite of that, he again emphasises that what he preaches is totally in harmony with what he had received from his own teachers, the other apostles and that is also what the Corinthians believe.

Paul thus puts the resurrection of Jesus as the central fact on which our whole faith in Jesus is based. Without that, all the rest falls apart. This he will show in tomorrow’s reading.

Let us today renew our faith in the resurrection of Jesus. He who died on the cross is now our living Lord who, through his Spirit, is really present in every baptised member of our communities and remains a powerful factor in our lives.

Luke 7:36-50

Today’s passage is one of the most striking scenes in the whole of the Gospel. It is a story only found in Luke and, in a way it is strange that it is not otherwise recorded. It is not the same as the anointing of Jesus at Bethany, described by Matthew (26:6-13). Perhaps to some, especially Jewish readers, it was a little too daring and close to the edge. Because it is a highly sexual story in which Jesus is deeply involved.

We are told that a Pharisee - his name is Simon - was keen to have Jesus eat at his house. The word ‘Pharisee’ means ‘separated one’ and they numbered about 6,000 throughout Palestine. They taught in synagogues and, as their name implies, they saw themselves on a higher level of religious observance. They believed that interpretations and rules handed down by tradition had virtually the same authority as Scripture (cf. Mark 7:8-13). As a result, they were constantly bothered by Jesus’ behaviour.

Jesus accepted the invitation and he joined Simon and others at the table. We should notice that Jesus accepted invitations from both Pharisees and tax collectors. Both were equally deserving of his love and service. The diners would be reclining on couches, rather than sitting, as was the fashion of the day. This helps to explain what is going to happen.

It is not clear whether what happened next was totally spontaneous or whether it was part of a conspiracy to put Jesus in a compromising position where he could be denounced (not unlike his being presented with an adulterous woman - John 8:1ff). In one sense it was strange that a woman such as this could burst into a Pharisee’s house unchallenged (there must have been servants); on the other hand, houses were not bolted and barred as they are in our more civilised(?) times.

What is clear is that the woman’s own intentions were sincere. We are told she was a sinner. “Sinner” here can only refer to some public immorality and very likely she was a “woman of the street”, a prostitute or at least a woman known for her promiscuous behaviour.

She was eager to meet with Jesus and heard that he was dining at Simon’s house. So she burst in, bringing an alabaster box of ointment (probably quite expensive - the gift of an appreciative client?) and came up to Jesus from behind. She immediately began crying and her abundant tears bathed Jesus’ feet. She then began to dry his feet with her long hair. The fact that she wore her hair down or let it down in public itself indicates that she was a “loose” woman. She kissed the feet of Jesus and poured the ointment over them.

Simon, whether he had planned the intrusion or not, was deeply shocked at the extraordinary scene that was playing out before his eyes and in his house. If Jesus was really a prophet, he thought to himself, he would know what kind of a woman this was who was touching him. She was a sinner and no good person, least of all a rabbi, should allow anything remotely like that to take place.

Jesus, fully aware of what was going on in Simon’s mind, tells him a story about two debtors. One owed a large amount and other a smaller amount. However, the creditor wrote off both debts. Which of the two, Jesus asked, would be more grateful and appreciative? Obviously the one who had been remitted the larger debt, said Simon.

“Well said,” replied Jesus and then went on to apply the parable to the present situation. In the process he indicates something that Simon had probably not thought of - that he, too, was a sinner, even though to a lesser degree. Because Simon had been guilty of not extending even the ordinary courtesies of hospitality to his guest.

Simon had not had Jesus’ feet washed when he came into the house but the woman had washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. Simon had not given a kiss of greeting but the woman had not stopped kissing his feet since she came into the house. Simon had not put oil on his guest’s head but the woman had poured an expensive flask of ointment over his feet.

And therefore - now comes the point of the story: “Her many sins have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love.” The one who has less forgiven loves less. And, turning to the woman at his feet, Jesus says, “Your sins are forgiven.” And the guests at table begin to ask each other: “Who is this that he forgives sin?” Again Jesus says to the woman, “Your faith has made you whole again. Go in peace.”

This is a really extraordinary story. To appreciate this one has to enter into it visually and be really present with all one’s senses active. What comes across is the amazing composure and inner security and freedom of Jesus during the whole episode. He shows absolutely no signs of being uncomfortable or embarrassed. He does not pull away or tell the woman to stop what she is doing.

Here is this woman, known to be a public sinner, who comes in and weeps over him, wipes his feet with her hair and keeps kissing them passionately. The guests are highly disturbed, shocked and probably embarrassed but Jesus remains perfectly at ease. The reason is that he knows what the woman is doing and is not worried about what others might think she is doing.

Let us admire his ability to focus totally on the woman and not be self-conscious about the other people around. Can one imagine what a tabloid publication might have made of this scene?! What if something like that were to happen today with a bishop or a priest? Or some other prominent person? How would most clergy - or other public people react in such a situation?

Jesus can see that the woman is expressing both sincere repentance and a great affection for Jesus. She is expressing her repentance in the only way that she knows. She is a highly tactile person; it is part of her way of life. To the sexually immature, what she is doing and Jesus’ acceptance of it seems at the very least unbecoming and at the worst bordering on the obscene.

But Jesus says her sins are now forgiven. It was really the passionate love she was showing which indicated that had won forgiveness. Love and sin are incompatible; they cannot co-exist in the same person. She was loving Jesus so much at that moment that she could not be a sinner. Simon could not see this. His concept of sin was purely legalistic. For Jesus it is relational.

At this point her immoral past was totally irrelevant. In our society wrongdoers can be stuck with labels often for the rest of their lives irrespective of how they have changed. God does not work that way. He deals with persons as they are here and now. What I did yesterday does not matter. All that matters is what I am doing now, how I am relating to God and those around me right now.

We remember the man who died beside Jesus on the cross. He had led a terrible life and was now being executed for his crimes. Yet he appeals to Jesus and is promised that he will go to God hand in hand with Jesus. Unfair? Fortunately God’s ideas of fairness are not ours. Otherwise we might be in trouble because of our past.

Once again we see how God, in Jesus, always tries to rehabilitate and not to punish. Punishment destroys. God’s desire is that we be all made whole and experience inner peace and harmony.

Week 24 | Friday

1 Cor 15:12-20

Although the core of the Gospel proclamation was that Christ had been raised from the dead, there were Christians in Corinth who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.

For Paul, Christ’s resurrection, of which the apostles are witnesses, is the decisive proof of the future resurrection of all, which is something the Old Testament early on suspects and hopes for but eventually asserts quite plainly. This is why the resurrection of Christ is the foundation of faith. The risen Christ can be called the first-fruits, not only heralding but causing the resurrection of all Christians.

Paul throws down a strong challenge to the logic of the Corinthians’ doubts. He makes eight points to show the falseness of their position:

If there is no resurrection from the dead,

then Christ himself has not been raised;

all preaching of the Gospel is therefore useless;

as is their faith in Christ, who, in this hypothesis, no longer exists.

Paul and his colleagues are guilty of telling terrible lies when they say they have had a personal experience of the Risen Christ;

and the faith of the Corinthians has no basis whatever.

They are still in their sins which have not been forgiven when they were baptised.

All their brothers and sisters who have died have gone into total oblivion.

And, if faith in Christ is valid only for this life, then the Christians are among the most to be pitied for enduring so much hardship and persecution for something which ends in nothing.

None of this makes sense, concludes Paul. He categorically states his conviction that Christ has been raised from the dead and he is the ‘first-fruits’ who leads the way for all others who die his followers. It was the custom for the Jews to offer the first sheaf of the harvest to the Lord, as an acknowledgement that the whole harvest was his gift and would be used by his people in his love and service.

Similarly, Christ is the first ‘sheaf’ of the great harvest which will be gathered together by God to be with him forever. We too pray that we may be included in that great harvest.

Luke 8:1-3

This passage follows immediately from yesterday’s about the sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee. It is one of those summary passages describing in general terms the work of Jesus.

He is accompanied by the chosen Twelve, his co-operators in the preaching of the word and the establishing of the Kingdom. And it is precisely the Good News (the Gospel) about the Kingdom that they are preaching in word and demonstrating in practice.

What is noteworthy here - and it is unique to Luke - is the mention of many women also travelling in the company of Jesus. Some of them were women who had been healed of evil spirits. One is mentioned by name, Mary of Magdala, from whom seven evil spirits had been exorcised. The number seven is not to be taken literally but indicates the woman had formerly been in a seriously immoral state. She appears very prominently in John’s gospel as someone very close to Jesus and he describes her as the first witness of the Resurrection. It is possible, too, that the “sinful woman” in the house of Simon the Pharisee was also in the group.

Some of the other women seem to be of more ample means and higher social rank. One of them was Joanna, the wife of King Herod’s steward. They helped Jesus and his disciples with their material needs. Once again, Jesus is not embarrassed to travel in the company of these women; nor are they uncomfortable in his.

We see here two roles being played by followers of Jesus. On the one hand are the apostles whose function it is to proclaim the Gospel and establish the Kingdom by word and deed, by preaching and by the example of the communal and shared life they are leading.

The other role is that of disciples who are materially better off and who support the work of proclaiming the Gospel by providing for the material and other needs of the evangelisers.

Both roles are complementary and both, taken together, form the evangelising work of the Church.

A good example are the Sisters of Mother Teresa who would never be able to take care of the destitute dying without the generous help of many benefactors. And the same for many other voluntary groups involved in looking after the disadvantaged.

Week 24 | Saturday

1 Cor 15:35-37, 42-49

Paul has been affirming the centrality of rising from the dead as part of our Christian faith. But then he puts the question: “But someone may say, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come back?’” It is a question any Christian - or non-Christian for that matter - could very well ask today.

In today’s final reading from the First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul tries to explain, by the use of images, what the resurrection of the body means.

Paul at first says this is really a silly question in the sense that it cannot be a question of a corpse suddenly coming back to life and somehow being transported into a heavenly world. (Any more than the resurrection of Christ is to be understood as the simple resuscitation of his dead body.)

He gives an example from plant life. You plant a seed in the ground and something totally different emerges. The original seed “dies”, so to speak, and gives birth to something altogether new. There is an extraordinary transformation and yet both share the same identity. Another dramatic example is the caterpillar which goes into a cocoon and emerges as something that looks entirely different - yet it is the same individual.

It is somewhat similar with resurrection from the dead, says Paul. A perishable, contemptible, and weak body dies and becomes transformed into something imperishable, glorious and powerful. “It is sown dishonourable; it is raised glorious. It is sown weak; it is raised powerful”. Like the tiny vulnerable acorn that is transformed into a mighty oak.

The person born, says Paul, is originally an “embodied soul”. ‘Soul’ here refers to the source of life that animates the physical body. But the person who is raised after death is an “embodied spirit”, in the sense that now the person is filled with a new animating force, the very Spirit of God. It is the same person but radically changed.

The Jerusalem Bible explains Paul’s thinking in this way:

As it only gives natural life, psyche [yuch, soul] is less important than pneuma [pneuma, spirit] by which a human life is divinised by a process that begins through the gift of the Spirit and is completed after death. Greek philosophers thought of the higher soul (the nous, nous) escaping from ‘the body’ (soma, swma) to survive immortally. Christians thought of immortality more in terms of the restoration of the whole person, involving a resurrection of the body effected by the Spirit or divine principle which God withdrew from human beings because of sins, but restored to all who are united to the risen Christ, who is the ‘heavenly’ man and life-giving Spirit. The ‘body’ is no longer psychikon (yucikon) butpneumaticon (pneumatikon) incorruptible, immortal, glorious, no longer subject to the laws of matter; it does not even answer the description of matter. Psyche can be used in a wider sense as the opposite of the body to indicate what it is in a human being that behaves and feels, or even to indicate the spiritual and immortal soul.

[So it is important to be aware in this passage that Paul is using the word ‘soul’ here as the source of life in the earthly human body. It is not what we commonly understand as a God-inserted immortal soul but rather something common to all living things, plants, animals and humans.]

Paul continues his explanation of his distinction between the “natural” and the “spiritual” body by pointing to their two archetypes: the first Adam and Jesus, the second Adam.

The first human person, Adam, had a natural body of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7) and through him a natural body is given to his descendants. Through the creative power of the Creator he became a “living soul”. That is, the dust of the earth became animated by a life-giving principle which he passed on to his descendants. But the “first man, being from the earth, is earthly by nature”.

The first Adam, who came from the dust of the earth, was given life. The second Adam is one who gives life. His is a “life-giving spirit” (cf. John 5:26). When he comes at the end of time, he will, through the power of his own death and resurrection, give his people a “spiritual”, that is, Spirit-filled body. This body is, as we said, imperishable, without corruption and capable of existing face to face with God. We are the same person but we exist in an altogether different way.

In life we are modelled on the “earthly” man, destined to death and to return to the dust of the earth. After death, we are modelled on the “heavenly” or “spiritual” man, sharing in the very life of Jesus, the Second Adam.

The resurrection of Jesus and our resurrection after death are central to our Christian faith. Without them, life loses all its meaning.

However, it is probably better for us not to speculate too much on the very nature of life after death. It is an area which naturally arouses a great deal of curiosity and we have reports of people who have had “near-death” experiences. These accounts are very encouraging but they say very little of the experience of being face to face with God in all his glory. “Eye has not seen nor ear heard,” says St Paul, what God has prepared for those who love him.

Let us leave it at that and look forward to that wonderful day by concentrating on spending each day on earth in the love and service of Jesus, who has gone before us and has all things ready for us in his Father’s house of “many mansions”.

Luke 8:4-15

We saw yesterday that Jesus was going around preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, accompanied by his twelve chosen disciples and a number of women who supported the work. Jesus, we are told, is surrounded by people who have come from every nearby city. There is an intimation of universality, ‘catholicism’, about the message he is going to give.

We are given an example of some of the teaching that he was giving them. It takes the form of a parable, the well-known parable of the sower. As in Matthew’s version, the parable is told in two stages. The first is the parable itself. The emphasis is on the sower sowing. He scatters the seed all over - as Jesus is now doing with the people. Some of it falls on the path, some on rocks, some among brambles and some on good soil.

It describes a typical situation in Palestine at the time. The field was largely a public place, at least while it was fallow. So there were paths meandering across it where people took short cuts. The land was not very fertile so there were pieces of rock jutting out of the soil. In the fallow season, it was not looked after and wild plants like brambles grew up. Also, unlike other farming cultures, the sowing took place before the ploughing.

The central message is that, even though some of the seed that the sower plants will wither and die, there is some which will find fertile soil and flourish. So it is with the Word of God and the Word of Jesus. It is a message of confidence and hope for the future of the Kingdom. In the Gospel, it is Jesus’ disciples who are the fertile soil.

As he finished the parable Jesus called out to all, inviting them to hear. He did not mean that they just physically hear. They are meant to listen carefully, to assimilate fully and to implement effectively all that he says. He is the Sower, the seed is the Word, those spoken to are the soil.

Clear and all as it is, the disciples ask for an explanation of the parable. Jesus tells them that the inner secrets of the Kingdom are for them. Why this privilege? Because they are disciples, because they are followers, because they are ready to listen. The rest hear in parables and only in parables: seeing, they do not see; hearing, they do not understand. They do not really want to see or hear because, as the Gospel says elsewhere, if they were to see and understand, they would have to turn their lives around and they are not ready for that.

The disciples are those who have done just that; they have left their boats, their nets and their families, their security and gone with Jesus. That is what seeing and hearing means.

Then follows the explanation which really carries the original parable further than its simple message. In fact, it becomes more like an allegory where each part has a meaning of its own rather than the one point that a parable normally makes. And, whereas in the parable the emphasis was on the sower, here the emphasis is very much on the soil which receives the seed. Each example is made to represent a particular way in which the message is received or not.

The seed that falls on the path is like those who hear the word but it is snatched away from them before they have even a chance to respond. The overwhelming pagan world around them was just too strong an attraction.

The seed that falls on the rock where there may be some moisture in the crevices is like those who hear the word with great enthusiasm and joy (a favourite Lucan term). But they are not able to put down any long-lasting roots and, at the first hint of opposition or temptation, they fall away. They represent the many early Christians who must have given up under the pressures of persecution.

The seed that falls among the brambles represents those who do hear and accept the word. But, gradually the pressure of the secular world and its values is too much. They try to live in both worlds at once but are gradually choked up with concerns about money and material and social wants and the pursuit of pleasure. Eventually, the word dies in them. Many Christians today could identify with this group.

The seed that falls on good soil represents those who hear the word in all openness and accept it fully. The word takes root deep within them and overflows in all kinds of good works.

It is quite clear to which group we are called to belong. To which one, in fact, should I honestly identify myself?

Week 25 | Monday

Prov 3:27-34

Today we return to the Old Testament and begin reading from some of the so-called “Wisdom” books. This week we will be reading selections from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

The books consist of a series of “wise sayings” emanating from the educated and leading class of the Jewish people in the period following the return from exile in Babylon. These books are quite different in style from the prophets and tend to deal with the behaviour of individuals and close relationships and right thinking. They have relatively little to say about abuses against injustice which are a major concern of the prophets we were reading in recent weeks.

The book of Proverbs is a collection of moral and religious instruction given to young Jews by learned teachers. “Proverbs is the most typical example of a ‘wisdom’ book in the Old Testament (compare Job, Ecclesiastes), with its emphasis on moral probity based on religion, its teaching that reward and punishment follow in this life, its appeal to the lessons of experience rather than to revelation, and its brief but significant exploration of the nature of wisdom and of wis dom’s relation to God.”

Today’s reading touches on the relations with the neighbour. In the Old Testament, ‘neighbour’ originally referred to a person who was close to one in some way as a friend or associate. In general it included those who shared one’s culture and religion. However, in Proverbs it has the wider meaning as expressed by the term ‘fellow-man’.

We are in the first stage of broadening the concept of those to whom we owe love and respect. Jesus will give the word a universal meaning with his parable of the Good Samaritan and the injunction to love all, including enemies.

Today Proverbs says we ought to extend help to any brother or sister whenever they are in genuine need. Later, we read in the First Letter of John: “How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?… Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action” (3:17-18). Again, we read in the Letter of James: “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what good is that?” (2:15-16).

At the same time, we are told never to make evil plans against another unsuspecting person. We should not pick a quarrel with someone who has done nothing against us.

In general, we are never to imitate people of violence. The apparent prosperity of violent people and other enemies of God’s people was always seen as a threat to their fidelity to Yahweh. Later, it would even become a serious theological problem. So, Jeremiah asks the Lord: “Why does the way of the godless prosper, why do all the treacherous live lives of contentment?” (12:1) Or Job: “Why do the wicked survive, grow old, become mighty in power?” Questions we can be tempted to ask in our own day.

However, immoral behaviour is something which can never be condoned by God. God abhors pagan practices and all forms of moral abuse. On the other hand, Yahweh takes the upright into his confidence, “with the upright is his friendship”. All of this we can find spelt out much more clearly in the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament. Jesus at the Last Supper will tell his disciples that they are his friends (John 15:15).

“God’s curse lies on the house of the wicked person but the home of the good person is blessed.” The arrogant will get their comeuppance but God’s grace flows into the heart of the humble.

It is important that we do not read these words as indicating a vindictive God who clobbers the wrongdoers and rewards the good. God has no need to intervene directly. A life that is objectively and subjectively evil may bring wealth, material success, and power but it is most unlikely to bring the more precious gifts of inner peace and harmony between God and one’s brothers and sisters.

On the other hand, the truly good person, even though his life on the surface may seem to be one of hardship, experiences a peace and strength that no adversity can take away.

Luke 8:16-18

The message today seems clear enough. The Gospel message is not meant to be kept hidden.

We are not a ‘mystery religion’ in the sense that the Gospel is only for initiates. It is a message that is to be proclaimed from the housetops. If what we believe and say is true it will prevail. We understand Jesus to be the Light of the world and his followers are also to be like lamps shining out for all the world to see. An invisible Christian is a contradiction in terms, yet there are strong tendencies for us “to keep our religion to ourselves and not foist it on others”.

Forcing others to believe is not on, even if it were possible. Inviting people to “come and see”, to hear the message and have a personal experience of living it is something else. We also believe that the Gospel message offers a way of life that brings great happiness into the lives of individuals and of whole societies if it is really followed. So, part of our communicating the message is as much through our lifestyle (”See! it works!”) as through what we say.

“Take heed, therefore, HOW you hear,” says Jesus today. It has to be a hearing which understands, accepts, assimilates and puts into practice. What is heard and assimilated has to be passed on. Otherwise it dies. But “to the one who has, more will be given”. And “he who has not [because he has not been hearing and absorbing properly] will lose even the little he has”. To be a Christian is not to reach a certain level and stay there; it essentially means constant growth and development. To stay still or to stagnate is to go back.

Week 25 | Tuesday

Prov 21:1-6, 10-13

We have today a set of two-line moral aphorisms which are quite distinct from each other and with which we are not likely to quarrel. However, whether they reflect the way we always behave is another question, so we do need to read or listen to each statement carefully.

Today the writer tells us that everything is ultimately in God’s hands. The heart of the greatest king is just like flowing water in the hands of the Lord. He can direct it where he pleases. Great kings like Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Cyrus of Persia might have seemed all-powerful when compared to Israel but before God they were impotent. They were merely instruments in his hands. Whether we are dealing with the great suffering that Nebuchadnezzar brought on Israel or the liberations from the Babylonians which came with Cyrus - in either case, for all their apparent power, they were only doing God’s work.

It is not enough for a person’s external behaviour to seem good. God will see and judge the inner intentions of the heart. In the true follower of Christ there is no difference between his outward behaviour and his inward intentions. As Paul writes to the Corinthians: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor 4:4).

And in the Letter to the Hebrews we read: “Indeed the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12).

To act virtuously and in a spirit of true justice towards others pleases God more than any sacrifice.

This is a theme which goes right through the Old Testament but is put with particular force in the prophets. Says the prophet Hosea, for example: “For it is love that I desire, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than holocausts” (6:6). Again, from Micah: “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil?” (6:7).

And powerful words from Jeremiah:

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Heap your holocausts upon your sacrifices; eat up the flesh! In speaking to your fathers on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I gave them no command concerning holocaust or sacrifice. This rather is what I commanded them: Listen to my voice; then I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, so that you may prosper” (Jer 7:21-23).

The Gospel will continue to emphasis this. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus will say: “When you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you leave your gift there before the altar and go; first, be reconciled to your brother or sister, and only then come and offer your gift” (Matt 5:23-24).

For us it means that regular attendance in church and at Mass by itself is not enough unless it is accompanied by a daily life that gives real witness in word and action to the loving demands of the Gospel.

Arrogance and pride, which result in trampling on the dignity and rights of others, can only be seen as belonging to sin.

The “hardworking” man reflects on the value of what he does and is a gainer in the long run.

The one who rushes to gain wealth and material success for himself ends up the loser.

Similarly, to make a fortune through lying and deceit is tantamount to seeking death rather than life. As our society becomes more prosperous and people have more, paradoxically the level of dishonesty also grows at all levels of society. Even those who have more than they could possibly spend will commit massive fraud to get even more.  We may not be in that league but we might profitably ask, How honest are we in the use of our material resources?

The mocker ends up being punished by his own arrogance and the dead end he chose to follow. The formerly ignorant can learn from this. The wise person, however, is always ready to learn more from those who can teach him.

Finally, a very serious warning for all of us: if we close our ears to the cry of the poor and the needy, we cannot expect to have our own cries for help responded to either. Again, as our society grows richer, there are still many, far too many, who are shut off from sharing in that prosperity. Ironically, growing prosperity for some all too often results in growing poverty for others.

In the Gospel we remember the parable of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus whom he totally neglected (Luke 16:19-31), or the unmerciful servant who had a huge debt forgiven by his master but then threw a fellow-servant into jail for not paying back a paltry amount. “Forgive us our sins, AS we forgive those who sin against us.”

How much of what we have gained over the years has been shared with those who have not gained or even lost? The fact that what they have lost may have been largely through their own mistakes does not lessen their need for help. The term “deserving” poor cannot be found in the Gospel. As someone has said: “God loves the poor, not because they are good, but because they are poor.”

Each of these sayings can stand by itself but together they build up a picture of the kind of person each one of us is called to be.

Luke 8:19-21

The mother and brothers of Jesus come looking for him but they cannot get to him because of the crush of people in the house where he is speaking. Jesus was in Capernaum at the time and Nazareth was about 50 km (30 miles) away. The mention of ‘brothers’ would commonly indicate cousins and not just siblings. When the message is passed in to Jesus, he says to all: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.”

The story is told in harsher terms in Mark. He has Jesus say, for instance: “Who is my mother; who are my brothers and sisters?” It is suggested there that their purpose was to take him away. On the one hand, they thought he was mad and an embarrassment to the family and, secondly, that he might get them into trouble with the authorities because of the provocative things he was saying and doing such as questioning traditional interpretations of the Law. (We see a similar embarrassment on the part of the parents of the man born blind in John chap. 9. They refuse to speak to the authorities about their son: “He is big enough; he can speak for himself.”)

Luke’s account is softer and just focuses on the saying of Jesus. In fact, Luke has taken this passage out of its context in Mark (3:31-35) and turns it into a conclusion to his short section on the parables. And he modifies Mark’s “Anyone who does the will of God is my brother and sister” to match the end of his parable of the sower (the seed that falls in rich soil represents those “who have heard the word and take it to themselves”, v.15) by having Jesus say: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.”

To a society which regarded itself as God’s chosen people merely by birth and an external ritual like circumcision Jesus asserts that belonging to God has little to do with blood or race but only with the relationship one establishes with God.

There is a lot of meaning in the words of the message: “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…” It was clear from their behaviour that they were not, like the seed falling on fertile soil, ‘hearing’ him and so they were outsiders. Those who really ‘hear’, no matter who they are or where they come from, are ‘insiders’ and belong to the family of Jesus.

Of course, we know elsewhere, especially from Luke’s gospel, that Mary is not being condemned here - whatever about other family members. In fact, this is where her greatness really lies. Clearly it partly lies in her being chosen to be the mother of God’s Son but perhaps even more in her saying ‘Yes’ (”Let it happen to me according to your word”), in her unswerving faithfulness to that ‘Yes’ and in her standing by her Son to the very end when all the rest had fled.

When, on another occasion, she was indirectly praised for being the mother of such a Son, Jesus had spoken in words very similar to today: “No, blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Our discipleship, too, is not determined by our being born into a Catholic family or just by being baptised or by observing the external requirements of our religion but by our total commitment to the Gospel and to an unconditional following of Jesus. Only then can we truly be said to be his brother or sister.

Week 25 | Wednesday

Prov 30:5-9

Our last selection of readings from Proverbs.  They give us a taste of what the rest of the book is like. Today there are two pieces of advice for us to reflect on.

Our reading today is taken from chapter 30 which is also entitled ‘The Words of Agur’. It is not known who Agur is. He is simply called ‘son of Jakeh the Massaite’. Massa is in northern Arabia and elsewhere referred to as an encampment of the Ishmaelites (Gen 25:14). However, the word may not be meant as a place name but signify ‘an oracle’ or ‘a prophecy’.

First we are urged to take refuge in the unalloyed or flawless word of God which will be our most effective security in life. When we fully assimilate that word we are endowed with a vision of life which enables us to see where real truth and goodness lie.

At the same time, we are not to play around with God’s word and distort it to suit our own convenience. Moses gave a warning to the Israelites about that long before (Deut 4:2). It is something we can do very easily, especially when we take a text out of its context, as some preachers tend to do. Don’t we say that “The devil quotes Scripture for his own purpose”? It is not at all difficult for us to do the same.

The reading ends with a prayer to God for two things. This begins a section of the chapter called ‘numerical proverbs’. Further on the author introduces sets of proverbs with ‘three things’ and ‘four things’.

“Keep falsehood and lies far from me.” In other words, the writer begs for the gift of integrity. A wholeness where there is perfect harmony between his inner self and his outward behaviour and between God’s will and the deepest desires of his heart. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt 5:8).

Secondly, he also prays for a basic security in life, that he be supplied with his essential needs. As we pray in the Lord’s Prayer: “Give us each day our daily bread” (Matt 6:11). He wants neither wealth nor destitution. Both have their dangers.

Wealth can alienate one from God. In the arrogance of wealth I may be tempted to say, “God? Who is he? What has he got to do with me? I don’t need him.” We remember the parable of the rich man with his full barns (Luke 12:13-21). Moses predicted that Israel would forget God when their food was plentiful and their herds large (Deut 8:12-17).  The ever-growing prosperity of Europe has led to a parallel growth in secularism.

Destitution, on the other hand, can lead me into criminal ways in order to survive.

In our day of great material prosperity coupled with enormous areas of destitution and poverty, the Christian community can give enormous witness by the repudiation of the consumerist, hedonistic mentality in a life of decent simplicity while working hard to bring about a more equitable sharing of the enormous wealth that parts of our world are generating.

This was originally the purpose of religious life and it is still the ideal but it is not often as visible in the lives of religious as it could be partly because some religious themselves are not immune to the consumerist ‘bug’ but also because the normally simple lifestyle of the majority of religious is not seen enough by people.

In our day, lay people too can give this witness of simplicity, living according to one’s needs. A good definition of a person who is really rich: One whose needs are the least.

Luke 9:1-6

As we move on to chapter 9, we have left out a number of stories in chapter 8 - the calming of a storm on the lake, the healing of a demoniac, the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of a woman with a haemorrhage. However, they are dealt with elsewhere in our readings from the other gospels. We are now moving into a turning point in the public life of Jesus and in his relationship with his disciples.

This is, in fact, the third tour of Galilee by Jesus. On the first tour he was accompanied just by the four fishermen he had called first - Peter, Andrew, James and John. On the second all the Twelve were with him and, on the third, he was alone after sending out the Twelve on their own mission.

We begin the chapter today with Jesus sending his chosen Twelve on their mission. It is the first time he has sent them out on their own without his being with them. Basically, they are to do exactly as their Master does. They are given power over evil forces and to heal sicknesses. They are also to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom.

They are to travel in total freedom and so are not to bring anything with them which would make travelling more difficult. No walking staff, or purse, or food, or money, nor even a change of clothing. It is understood that the people will support them in return for the services they render. It is expected that hospitality will be extended to them in the traditional way of the Middle East.

And they are not to be choosy about where they are received; they are to stay in the first house that accepts them. And, in places where they and their message and their services are not welcome, they will shake the dust off their feet. This was a symbolic act which the Pharisees practised when they left an “unclean” Gentile area. In this case, the act signifies that people are not just rejecting the disciples but God himself, Whom they bring with their message and their healing.

And so they went out, from town to town, proclaiming the Good News and restoring people to wholeness wherever they went. It really was the beginning of the Church. And it was the work of making the Kingdom a reality, God’s will being “done on earth”.

The same mission is entrusted to each one of us although it will obviously be adapted to our life situation. We are called, individually and in community, to proclaim the Gospel by word and lifestyle. We are called to help liberate people from the negative forces, addictions of all kinds that can enslave. We are called to be sources of healing and wholeness and for this we do not need to be part of the medical profession. We are called to live lives of simplicity, using only those things which we need for life and work and rejecting all superfluity and luxury. As we have already noted: the really rich are those whose needs are the least. It is a message our consumer world needs to hear and see.

Week 25 | Thursday

Eccl 1:2-11

Today we begin reading from the Book of Ecclesiastes, another Wisdom book which follows immediately in our Bible on Proverbs.

The word “Ecclesiastes” is a Greek translation of the original Hebrew title of the book, Qoheleth, a word which means “Teacher”, one who conducts an assembly or a school. As the Greek word for ‘assembly’ is ekklesia (’ekklhsia), this explains the title we use.

The book is presented as being written by Solomon, a king famous for his wisdom, and this gave it weight as a “wisdom” book. However, scholars are agreed that the book was not written by Solomon but comes from a much later period when the Jews, back from exile and in Jerusalem, were under the empire of the Persians.

The book teaches wisdom by highlighting the emptiness of most human pursuits. “All is vanity.” The language often sounds negative and cynical. Even so, “in the face of death and ‘vanity’, Qoheleth repeatedly urges humans to embrace life and its goods - food, drink, love, work, and play - as gifts from God”. (Harper Collins Bible).

In the face of the emptiness and vanity of life, the Teacher does make two positive points:

a. Near the very end of the work he tells his reader to “fear God and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone”.

b. As humans have no really effective control over their environment and spend much of their time chasing the illusory, the real good is to enjoy life as a gift of God and it is in the area in which they find themselves that they are to find him.

The theme of the whole book is expressed in the opening words of today’s reading: “All is vanity.” The original meaning of the Hebrew word translated ‘vanity’ was ‘mist’ or ‘breath’. It is one of the traditional group of images (water, shadow, smoke, etc.) used in Hebrew poetry to describe the transitory nature of human life. It is used 35 times altogether in this book but in Qoheleth the word has lost its usual meaning and for him signifies only the illusory nature of things and hence the delusions to which they subject the human family. The basic thrust of Ecclesiastes is that all of life is meaningless, useless, hollow, futile and vain if it is not rightly related to God. Only when based on God and his word is life worthwhile.

“For all his toil under the sun, what does man gain by it?” It reminds one of the words of Jesus to his disciples: “What does it profit a person to gain the whole world and lose his life?” A life without God and the values we identify with God, however much energy is put into it, is meaningless.

The second part of the reading is full of a kind of weariness and pessimism about the experience of life that many, if not most, people have experienced at some time. The world by itself seems to have no inner meaning. It goes on and on repeating the same cycles again and again. There is a terrible determinism and inevitability about everything. Yet, Job, who had his fair share of troubles, looking at the same world is filled with wonder and adoration. To quote a verse: “Two men looked out through prison bars / One saw mud and one saw stars.”

Of course, the author was writing in a world which had far less control over its environment than we have but even in our day there are still situations where we are basically helpless. Freak weather conditions, droughts and floods, earthquakes and volcanoes, deadly viruses, the breakdown of our bodies (often the result of our own indulgences and excesses in work and play), our recklessness with mind-altering substances (nicotine, alcohol, and other drugs), and the unforeseeable breakdown and/or mishandling of our technologies (e.g. car and plane crashes)… all of these can bring the most dazzling of human achievements to nothing, sometimes in a split second.

Meanwhile, as the Teacher says, the world goes on just as before without us. Generations come and generations go; the sun rises and sets; the wind blows from the north today and from the south tomorrow and back again; the rivers keep flowing into the sea but the sea remains the same in volume. The world goes on indefinitely but human life can disappear very quickly.

The cycles of life are repeated again and again. “There is nothing new under the sun.”  This is a phrase the Teacher will use 29 times in his book. It could be heard as very cynical but it also has a genuinely positive meaning.

We may feel that in our exciting technological world new things are constantly appearing. ‘New’ is a word constantly shouted at us by products in our supermarkets and TV ads. Yet, the deeper experiences of life repeat themselves again and again. Maybe we understand them a bit better but the experiences themselves and the fragility of life have not changed since the Teacher’s days.

Jesus put this in another way when he reminded us that we did not know the day nor the hour when our life would come to an end. There is not a single person, however rich or however powerful, who knows when that hour will take place.

The purpose of such a reflection, then, is not to fill people with fear and discouragement but with a realistic awareness of the ultimate purpose of living.

What is the quality and purpose of my life at this time? Is my day spent in seeking and finding him or am I in search of something else which I have no guarantee of either finding or keeping? Or, on the other hand, am I so in touch with my Lord that, no matter when it happens, I will be ready to answer his call and run to him full of desire for perfect unity with him?

Luke 9:7-9

Today we have a short interlude which is leading to some very special revelations.

Herod the tetrarch (his father Herod the Great’s kingdom had been divided among four sons) is hearing stories about what Jesus is doing. ‘Tetrarch’ means the ruler of the fourth part of a kingdom. This one, Herod Antipas, was one of several sons; the kingdom was divided among four of them. Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to 39 AD. Although not strictly speaking a ‘king’ he is called that in Matthew and Mark following popular usage.

Herod is puzzled because he is being told that Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead. At the same time others are saying that Elijah, whose expected return would signal the arrival of the Messiah, or some of the former biblical prophets has reappeared. Herod has recently beheaded John the Baptist and the superstitious king is filled with a mixture of fear and curiosity. He “kept trying to see Jesus”.

Luke does not actually record the death of John and, in this short passage, he prepares the reader for the later meeting of Herod with Jesus (23:8-12). So Herod’s wish will be partially fulfilled at a later date though under very unexpected circumstances and in a way that Herod will find very unsatisfactory. He is hoping that Jesus, like some circus dog, will do some ‘tricks’ or ‘miracles’ for him. [In the musical ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ Herod asks Jesus to walk across his swimming pool.]

Herod’s desire was almost entirely one of curiosity, it was the desire of the hedonist and the seeker of novelty. To see Jesus, in the full Gospel sense, is something totally other. It can only happen to those who have the eyes of faith and who can see in the person of Jesus the presence and power of God. We may recall the request of some “Greeks” who told Philip they wanted to see Jesus and the reply that Jesus gave about the grain of wheat falling into the ground and dying (John 12:20-26). We have not seen Jesus if we do not know him in his suffering and dying as his way to new life.

Let us ask to see Jesus today, a seeing that leads to a total acceptance of his way of life and following him all the way, through the cross and beyond to a life that never ends.

Week 25 | Friday

Eccl 3:1-11

Today we have a well-known passage which was even the subject of a popular ‘hit’ song some years ago.

It is part of a longer passage whose overall theme is death, the inevitable end of every life. Life here is presented as equally divided between things which bring pleasure and sadness, comfort and pain. Each has its own ‘time’ slot, so to speak, and we have little control over one or the other.

Our occupations - some bringing joy, others pain - are overshadowed by the inevitable end in death. Death casts its shadow on life, which is a series of contradictory acts, some of them listed here, but all end in the meaninglessness of death. We are subject to times and changes over which we have little or no control. Only one thing remains supreme - the all-knowing and all-loving God. We are totally in his hands and the sooner we realise that the happier we will be.

At the end the Teacher says that, although we can try to see meaning in individual events as they unfold, we can be mistaken and the overall direction of the world is totally beyond us. God’s world is simply too big for us to grasp. “God’s beautiful but tantalising world is too big for us, yet its satisfactions are too small. Since we were made for eternity, the things of time cannot fully and permanently satisfy.”

The New Testament keeps reminding us that we “have here no lasting city”. We are pilgrims passing through. We have no permanence in this world. The important goal is not to be reached here, because it does not, cannot exist. The ultimate goal is beyond this life.

Luke 9:18-22

After the incident concerning Herod, which, as we saw, is a pointer to things yet to happen, the disciples return from their mission. What follows is omitted from our readings. In fact, Jesus took them to a quiet place where they could rest and reflect on what they had been doing. However, they were pursued by the ever-hungry crowds and Jesus fed them with the Word of God, with his healing and finally, through his disciples (”You give them to eat”) with bread and fish. The story is another step in the Twelve’s involvement in the mission of Jesus and it leads into today’s reading.

We find Jesus praying alone. As we have already seen, it is something that Luke mentions a number of times about Jesus and especially before significant events in his public life. Some people might wonder what Jesus would have to pray about. Such a question could reveal a rather limited idea of prayer, e.g. as something you do when you want to get something from God or when you are depressed or in trouble of some kind.

But prayer is ultimately getting in touch with God and that is something that Jesus would surely want to do a lot. Prayer is also a way of discovering just where God’s will enters one’s life and that is something that was always of supreme importance to Jesus. “I and the Father are one.”

Jesus, we are told, was not altogether alone. His disciples were with him. Were they praying too? Later, they will ask Jesus to teach them how to pray.

All of this is Luke’s introduction to a high point in all the Synoptics: the revelation of Jesus’ true identity. From the other Synoptics we know that it took place at Caesarea Philippi, a mixed Jewish-Gentile region outside Herod’s territory.

“Whom do people say I am?” Jesus asks them. They give various answers: John the Baptist (resurrected) or Elijah, expected to return to announce the imminent coming of the Messiah, or some other of the earlier great prophets.

But then he asks, “Who do you say I am?” Peter, answering for all of them, replies simply: “The Christ of God.” “Christ” is not a name but a title. It comes from the Greek christos (cristos) which means “anointed”. And Christos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Messiah’. The anointing indicates someone who is king and, in this case, the One who is anointed the Saviour King of Israel.

In short, Peter is saying that the man standing before him is the long-awaited Saviour of the Jewish people. It is a dramatic development in Jesus’ relationship with his disciples.

His next words at first sight seem unexpected and contradictory. He strictly orders his disciples not to say anything of this to anyone. Surely they should be doing the exact opposite? But the people are not yet ready for this revelation. They have a very limited and preconceived idea of what the coming of the Messiah will mean. They see him in very political terms as a kind of national liberator who will drive out and destroy the Romans and all enemies of the Jewish people and restore the past glories of Israel.

Even after the Resurrection Luke has Jesus’ own disciples them asking him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Their ideas, even at this late date, are no different from the ordinary people’s. At this point in the Gospel, they must be secretly proud that they, of all people, are the first to be privileged with this information.

If that was the case, they were very quickly to be disillusioned. Almost immediately Jesus goes on to say that “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, be killed and raised on the third day”.

This is the first time in Luke that Jesus refers to himself as “the Son of Man”. It occurs 81 times in the four gospels and is only used by Jesus of himself. In the book of Daniel (7:13-14) we see the ‘Son of Man’ pictured as a heavenly figure who is entrusted by God with authority, glory and sovereign power. Jesus’ use of the title in a Messianic sense is made clear by its close proximity to Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the ‘Christ’.

We know from Matthew and Mark that the disciples - in particular Peter - were dumbfounded when they heard Jesus’ words and wanted to reject them entirely. It was totally against all their expectations of the Messiah, apart from the fact that they could not bear to have those things happen to their Master.

To them, it simply did not make any sense. First, Jesus as Messiah was going to be rejected and handed over by the leaders of their own people. Secondly, he was going to go through a terrible and humiliating death. His “being raised” on the third day - whatever that meant - did little to alleviate their confusion.

But, as Mark indicates, this was a further step in their relationship with Jesus. They now recognised him as the Messiah but now they had to learn just what kind of Messiah he was going to be and how he was going to liberate not only his own people but people all over the world.

We, too, of course, have to keep going through the same process. We have to deepen our understanding of the true identity of Jesus and we have to be able to understand how the suffering and dying Messiah is not only the way he needed to go to reconcile us with God but that we too have to be ready to go the same way. We have to learn to see the redemptive and healing power in the pains, sufferings, disappointments and failures of our lives.

Week 25 | Saturday

Eccl 11:9-12:8

Today we come to the end of our selections from this book. Even in translation one can see the poetry of the passage. Again it can be read in a very pessimistic way or with a sense of realism.

The reading deals with the inevitability of old age and what it brings.

In Jewish tradition, going back to the book of Deuteronomy, long life was seen as a reward promised by God and the greatest blessing given to those who had led good lives. However, for Qoheleth, old age is not happiness but the fear of death, regrets for one’s younger days, the slowing-down of life, and a painful slowing down “before the dust returns to the earth”.

So he begins by urging the young to enjoy their lives while they still have the energy and vigour to do so. “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may!” They should follow the promptings of their hearts and the desires of their eyes but with the caveat that some day they will have to give an account to God of their actions.

There seems to be a mixed signal when he tells them to “cast worry from your heart, shield your flesh from pain” because youth is but a “dawn” and it will not last long. For such a carefree and hedonistic life is in fact highly deceptive. For “youth, the age of dark hair, is vanity”. The wise young person will be mindful of the Creator while there is still time.

For the days are coming when life will give little pleasure and a kind of darkness (occasioned by weakening sight and cataracts?!), when sun and light and moon and stars grow dim and the clouds return after the rain.

There follows then a sad but moving description of old age

when strong men become bowed down,
when women can no longer grind corn,
when (through hardness of hearing?) so many sounds are no longer heard -
the sound of the mill,
the singing of the birds,
the sounds of song -
and when walking uphill becomes a dreaded ordeal.

Yet, while all that is happening, life continues with never-ending normality:

the blossoms come out on the almond tree
the grasshopper is heavy with food, and
the trees bear their fruit,
but we move inexorably towards our “everlasting home” in the bosom of the earth.

Already the mourners are getting ready to see us off, awaiting the moment “before the silver cord has snapped, or the golden lamp has been broken, or the pitcher shattered at the spring, or the pulley cracked at the well, or before the dust returns to the earth as it once came from it, and the breath of God who gave it” - all poetic ways of describing the ultimate return to the earth of the dust from which we came.

Finally, the Teacher closes his message using the same words with which he opened his book: “Vanity of vanities. All is vanity.”

Yet, as the Jerusalem Bible comments, while the book ends with the same words with which it began, in between it has covered much ground. It reminds us of our wretchedness and powerlessness but also of our greatness, by showing us that there is something greater beyond the world in which we live. It points us in the direction of the God who is above and beyond all that we can experience. “It incites the reader to disinterested religion and to that kind of prayer in which a creature, aware of its nothingness, adores the mystery of God”.

Vanity, or meaninglessness, is not the last word.

It is possible to feel depressed on reading this book but that is not its ultimate purpose and certainly not the intention of those who chose these readings for the liturgy.

Underneath the apparent negativity and cynicism is the deep truth of the transitoriness and fragility of all existence and the importance of our using well the time - long or short - that has been given to us and, through the joys and pains that make up every life, finding God’s love and compassion there. Life is to be enjoyed but with the realisation that, on this earth, it has a very definite end for each individual.

Underneath it all, one is reminded of the great ‘Contemplation to Attain the Love of God’ which concludes the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius Loyola.  In four steps, the one doing the Exercises is urged to be aware of:

1, the blessings of creation and redemption with which one is surrounded;

2, how God is present in every level of creation, bringing it to its destined fulfilment;

3, how God works for me through every created thing, including his Son Jesus Christ; and finally,

4, how reflection and contemplation on all of this brings me to the very Source of everything.  ”In him, we live, and move, and have our very being” (Acts 17:28)

To be united with that Source is my final Destiny and I can say with Paul:

“For I am convinced that neither death nor life,
nor angels, nor rulers,
nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, nor depth,
nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God
in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Roman 8:38-39).

Luke 9:43-45

After yesterday’s reading where the disciples recognised their Master as the Messiah and are told about the death and resurrection of Jesus, there follows the scene with the three chosen apostles on the mountain where they get a glimpse of Jesus in glory (the transfiguration). This is followed by the healing of the epileptic boy.

The reaction of the crowds to this cure was that “they were all amazed at the mighty power of God”. Not, we might note, the mighty power of Jesus. Even the crowds could recognise the real source of what Jesus was doing.

It is at this high point of Jesus’ popularity that he says just to his disciples, “Let all this sink into your ears, for the Son of man will be handed over into the hands of men.” What Jesus seems to be saying is that they are to realise there is no contradiction whatever between Jesus revealing in himself the unlimited power of God and his being handed over powerless to the power of his enemies. Only when they can see and understand the meaning of a suffering Messiah will they fully know the Way of Jesus.

But, Luke tells us, they were not ready yet for this. “They did not understand what Jesus was saying. It was hidden from them and they could not see it.” At the same time they were afraid to ask him.

To what extent can we say that we understand and accept the idea of a suffering Messiah? We are used to looking at the cross of Jesus but to what degree do we see the place of suffering in our own lives? Can we see that, without pain and suffering in our own lives and in those of others, our lives would be in many ways impoverished? Strange as it may seem, it is pain and suffering that can bring out what is most deeply human in all of us.

Week 26 | Monday

Job 1:6-22

After Proverbs and Ecclesiastes we now move on to another ‘wisdom’ book and one of the most profound, the Book of Job. It deals with a problem which is still a source of great puzzlement and contention: How can God allow a good and innocent person to suffer? 

Today’s reading sets the scene for the long dialogue which forms the main part of the book. 

The opening verses of the book, which we omit in today’s reading, present us with a man of great wealth and with a large and united family, as well as being a man who is very close to God. One day, we are told, when the “sons of God” came into the Lord’s presence, Satan came along with them.   These “sons of God” are superhuman creatures who make up God’s court and council and are understood to be the angels.  Satan was originally a general name for an evil being but later became a proper name and here plays a role similar to the serpent in Genesis, as a tempter to sin. 

There is then a dialogue between God and Satan, also called the “Adversary” or “Accuser”.  God, taking the initiative throws down a challenge.  He asks Satan if, in his wanderings around the earth, he had come across God’s good servant Job, a man whose like cannot be found anywhere.  “Servant” indicates someone with a special relationship to God and is used of people like Moses and David and, later in Isaiah, for the “suffering Servant” who is a pre-figurement of Jesus. 

“That’s all very well,” replies Satan, “for a person who has been endowed with huge wealth and prosperity.  It’s easy to be good in his situation.  But just let his possessions be taken away from him and you will see he will soon begin to curse God.”  Satan boldly accuses the man God commends: he says Job’s righteousness, in which God delights, is self-serving.  This is the core of Satan’s attack on God and his faithful servant in the book. 

God takes up the challenge.  “Right,” he says, “Job is all yours.  You can do what you like but do not harm his person.”  Satan is given an almost free hand to do what he wants but his power is significantly limited by the greater power of God.  The question now is: Will Job curse God to his face?  If Job does not, the accuser will be proven false and God’s delight in Job vindicated. 

We are now brought to the house of Job’s eldest son where all Job’s family are dining together.  One by one messages of disasters begin to come in.  First, an invasion of Sabaeans have carried off Job’s herds of cattle and murdered his farm workers.  All his herds of sheep and their shepherds are then struck by lightning.  Again, a group of Chaldeans take off all Job’s camels and murder their drivers.  Finally, Job is told that a hurricane has caused the house of his eldest son to collapse on his whole family, killing them all.  In effect, his family and future generations are wiped out. 

The Sabaeans were predatory nomads, probably southern Arabians from Sheba, whose descendants became wealthy traders in spices, gold and precious stones.  Later in the book Job refers to them as “travelling merchants” and associates them with Tema, which lies nearly 600 km south-east of Jerusalem.  Chaldeans were a Bedouin people until c.1000 BC, when they settled in southern Mesopotamia and later became the nucleus of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire.  

Job is left with nothing.  How will he respond?  Will he curse God or at least complain and ask why these things are happening to him?   

In fact, he goes into a penitential mode, tearing his clothes and shaving his head.  Perhaps these things are a sign of his sinfulness for which he needs to repent.  There is no sound of complaint but rather of total acceptance of what has happened to him:  He was born naked from the womb of his mother and naked he will return to the womb of the earth.  Everything he had was a gift from the Lord and now they have all been taken back.  “Blessed be the name of the Lord!”  Job’s faith leads him to see the sovereign God’s hand at work, and that gives him repose even in the face of calamity.  

In fact, in the long dialogues which follow with his friends, Job will show that acceptance of what has happened to him does not come so easily.  But, through it all, he never questions the justice of God; it is just that it is so difficult to understand. 

We can see that the problems we have today with the sufferings of the young and the innocent are nothing new. 

These questions become perhaps even more painful and meaningless when many try to solve the problem by removing God from the picture altogether.  But that does not solve the problem and does not take away the pain.  If there is no God, if we convince ourselves that all is simply the result of chance, then why does the sense of wrongness still assert itself?  In a world of pure chance there can be no absolute truth or falsehood, no objective right or wrong.  Things just happen in a totally mechanical way.   

Taking away God does not solve the problem because ultimately he is the source of the problem! – as Job recognises.  Somehow, the answer is only to be found in a God who is full of love and compassion, in a God who allows his own innocent Son to suffer terribly and die in agony.  Somehow the answer has to be found there in the Suffering Jesus.  Many have discovered that the way out is not the removal of their pain but in being able, together with Jesus, to go through it.  Pain can destroy but it can also heal.

Luke 9:46-50

Following on Jesus once again telling his disciples that he was going to be “handed over” to suffering and death, we were told in our previous reading that they did not understand what he meant. It did not make sense to them.

Now, almost as an indication of how far they were from Jesus’ thinking, they began arguing among themselves which one among them should be seen as the greatest. Why should they be arguing about this? Was it because, whatever difficulties they had in accepting what Jesus had said about his future, they were wondering what was going to happen after Jesus had been taken away from them? If they were to remain together as a group, which of them would be in charge?

Perhaps Peter was already beginning to think that he should be the one. Perhaps some of the others felt it should be one of them.

But Jesus, who, of course, was not present during these sensitive discussions, was well aware of what was going on. He took a child and put it in their midst. “Whoever receives a child like this in my name, receives me. And whoever receives me, receives him who sent me. For the one that is least among you all is the greatest.”

It is interesting that the greatness is to be seen in the child rather than in the one who receives it. The child represents all who are vulnerable and weak and powerless. To “receive” such persons is to treat them with the utmost dignity and respect and to accept them and lift them up.

In Jesus’ eyes, such little people are truly great because, to those who have eyes to see, they are the ones in whom we can especially meet Jesus and love and serve him. St Francis of Assisi, who kissed the leper (a particularly daring thing to do in his time), or Mother Teresa, tenderly picking up a decaying, barely living body off the street knew this well. To find Jesus in such a person is to make direct contact with God himself.

Jesus himself will reach the peak of his own greatness when he hangs dying and helpless on the cross. This is the lesson the disciples will learn to see and accept in time. We have to keep working on it too because it does not come easily to any of us.

The second part of today’s gospel points to another area where the disciples have to change their outlook. John, the brother of James, who both come across in the Synoptics as somewhat hotheaded (they had the nickname “sons of thunder”), tells Jesus they saw someone driving out devils in Jesus’ name. They had told the man to stop because he was “not one of us”. (Was there an element of jealousy also? In Mark 9:14ff, we are told that the disciples failed to drive out an evil spirit from a boy.)

Here we have something of the arrogance of the insider, of the elitist. John and his companions felt that the exorcism of evil spirits in the name of Jesus was something only they were allowed to do. Jesus did not agree. “Leave him alone,” he told them. And he enunciates a principle for them to follow: “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

It is a constant temptation among more devout religious people to set themselves apart from “the others”. It can happen to bishops or priests or religious. It can happen in a parish to members of the parish council or some parish group – a prayer group, charismatics, the liturgy committee or whatever.

We can find ourselves developing a two-tier community of “us” and “them”. We can find ourselves looking down on those who come in late for Mass and hang around the back door or who only come occasionally or maybe even only turn up at Christmas.

Even more, we can be tempted to set ourselves apart from non-Catholic and non-Christian groups. We can fail to see God working in all kinds of people, religious and non-religious, atheists, agnostics and people who apparently do not believe in anything.

Of course, as Christians, we do have a distinctive understanding of life and its meaning coming from the teaching and life of Jesus and it should not be compromised. But, at the same time, we do not have a monopoly of the truth. No one has. The full Truth is beyond all of us. We are all searching. Still less do we have a monopoly on good works. God can and does use any person to build the Kingdom. And it is our responsibility to work hand in hand with such people. Ultimately, our aim is not to promote our Church but God’s work and God’s plan for the whole world.

Week 26 | Tuesday

Job 3:1-3, 11-17, 20-23

The Dialogue begins: Job now curses the day of his birth but not God. 

As Job was there in misery and desolation, his family and all his property wiped out, his body covered with ulcers as he sat in an ashpit, he is scolded by his wife who urges him to curse the God who brought them to this state.  He replies in a phrase which underlies the whole book: “If we take happiness from God’s hand, must we not take sorrow too?” 

Job is then is joined by three friends: Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar who come to console him.  These are the famous “Comforters”.  They were appalled by his appearance; as far they were concerned, he was dead. For seven days and seven nights they all sat together in total silence.  Then Job broke the silence and uttered the words we have in today’s reading.  He curses the day he was born and the night he was conceived.  “Perish the day on which I was born!  The night when they said, ‘The child is a boy’.”  The birth of a boy would normally be good news; it would mean the continuation of the family line.  But Job is now alone – his whole family wiped out.  There is nothing to live for. 

There now comes a series of rhetorical questions.  If he was to be born, why did he not die soon after birth?  Why was there a mother there to hold and suckle him?  Otherwise he would now be with the dead, “lying in peace” in the company of kings and princes in their magnificent tombs, crammed with all kinds of treasure (like the kings of Ur or the Egyptian pharaohs). 

Or at least why did he not enter the world still-born to join those “unborn babes that never see the light” in that place where prisoners suffer no more, where high and low are all one and the slave is free of his master? 

“Down there” (in Sheol) even the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.  Sheol, a word of unknown origin, indicates the deepest parts of the earth.  It is the place where the dead, both virtuous and wicked alike are, leading a colourless existence where there is no praise of God.  The belief in rewards and punishments after death and of bodily resurrection only came very late in the Old Testament period (cf. 2 Macc 12:38ff). 

Why allow a man to grow up and suffer like this?  Why give life to those who long for a death that never comes, “who hunt for it more than buried treasure”?  “Why make this gift of light to a man who does not see his way, whom God baulks on every side?” 

Job can see no future for himself.  A life like this is not worth living.  He longs for the liberation of death and curses the day of his birth. 

We ourselves may have somewhat similar experiences and surely we know of others who have gone through terrible inner and outer pain.  People who wonder where a loving God can fit into such a situation.  Today, there are strong inclinations to arrange an early termination of such an existence.  Not a few take the way of suicide while others resort to “euthanasia”.  These are very sensitive issues which need to be dealt with through compassion and understanding. 

Although Job regrets now that he was born, he never contemplates suicide.  And, of course, later on, when his fortunes change again for the better, his words in today’s reading will be set aside. 

We, too, must always live in hope.  Some of our pains and sufferings are of a temporary nature and will go away.  Others, such as terminal illness, we know cannot be taken away.  Yet, here too, as experience has shown many times, total acceptance and inner peace is possible.  And so many good things can come from pain.  In my pain, I may experience the deep sympathy and compassion of people who might otherwise ignore me.   My pain can help me to understand much better the pain of others and bring a healing compassion to their situation.  A world totally free of pain could become a place of total selfishness and self-indulgence.

Luke 9:51-56

We come today to a distinct turning point in Luke’s gospel. It is marked by the opening words of today’s passage: “When the days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem.” The ‘taking up’ or the ‘assumption’ of Jesus refers to his passion and death leading to resurrection and ascension. It corresponds to the ‘glory’ that John speaks of and for whom the crucifixion is a ‘lifting up’ into ‘glory’.

At this point we have now come to the end of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and we move on to a new section – the journey to Jerusalem which ends at chap. 18:27 where we find Jesus in Jerusalem. The opening corresponds to Mark 10:1 where Jesus is seen entering Judea to preach there and which John more specifically describes as a journey to Jerusalem during the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:1-10)

But Luke diverges from Mark’s story with very different material. He now follows Matthew’s source as well as using material of his own. The section consists almost entirely of teachings of Jesus to his disciples. It is all loosely organised within the framework of Jesus making his way to Jerusalem. The section we are entering is a time of preparation for the disciples for their future role as Messengers of the Kingdom.

Jerusalem is the place where it is all going to happen – the ‘exodus’ of Jesus, including his suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension leading to the passing on of his mission to his disciples with the coming down of the Spirit of the Father and Jesus on the disciples. And it will be from Jerusalem that the new Church will be established and from Jerusalem it will spread gradually throughout the whole Mediterranean area until it reaches the empire’s capital in Rome and from there to the ends of the earth.

As he set out, Jesus sent some messengers ahead to announce his coming. In order to go directly from Galilee to Judea, where the city of Jerusalem was situated, they would have had to pass through Samaria. Samaritans were particularly hostile to Jews, especially when they were on their way to a Jewish festival in Jerusalem (as Jesus and his disciples seemed to be doing). It would take at least three days to cross Samaria and the Samaritans were refusing the disciples overnight shelter. Because of this situation, Jewish pilgrims and travellers often avoided confrontation by going down the east bank of the Jordan River. There is an irony here that, when the first Christians were persecuted in Jerusalem, they took refuge in Samaria which became one of the first places to accept the Gospel. (Very likely, the evangelist is aware of the irony when telling this story.)

Faced with this hostility, the brothers James and John, whom we described yesterday as hotheads, suggested that fire from heaven be called down to burn them up. Their threat is reminiscent of the fire that Elijah brought down on the emissaries of an idolatrous king. They were indignant that their Master, the Messiah, should be treated in this way. There is a parallel here between Jesus’ negative reception in his home town of Galilee with his rejection by the people of Samaria.

But Jesus distances himself from those disciples and gives them a scolding. This was not Jesus’ way. Instead, they went off to another village where they hoped to find a better welcome. As we see in other parts of the Gospel, Jesus does not normally go out of his way to court trouble. On the other hand, he will not hesitate to speak his mind or do what he believes is right, even if certain kinds of people take offence at it.

It is never Jesus’ way to destroy his enemies. We will see that clearly after he reaches Jerusalem where far worse things are done to him. Jesus’ purpose always is to change people who are against him, to defuse their hostility and help them to see things in a better way. It is something we could try to do more often. It is not at all the “softy’s” approach. On the contrary, it requires great inner strength and security.

Week 26 | Wednesday

Readings: Job 9:1-13,14-16; Luke 9:57-62

In today’s reading Job responds to Bildad of Shuah, one of his friends and comforters.  Basically Bildad had said that punishment of the wicked is as certain as the laws of nature.  There is an implication that Job’s misfortunes are somehow the punishment for his wrongdoings. 

Job agrees with this in principle and he does not claim that he is sinless but he does wish to have an opportunity to prove that at least he is not guilty of the kind of sin that would bring down on him such terrible misfortunes as he has experienced.  He will make serious complaints against God’s treatment of him but he never abandons his God nor (as Satan foretold he would do) does he curse him. 

Much later in the book (chap 42; cf. Saturday’s reading) it is implied that Job persevered but in these earlier chapters he does so with impatience.  We talk about the ‘patience of Job’ but the book is really concerned with his perseverance and refusal to rebel against God.  “You have heard of the endurance of Job”, says the Letter of James (5:11). 

In today’s reading he admits that God is all-powerful.  “How can one be in the right against God?”  His speech is filled with the imagery of the courtroom: “answer him”, “argue with him”, “innocent...plead...Judge”, “summon(ed)”, “pronounce me guilty”, “judges”, “court”, “charges...against me”, “witnesses”.  Job strongly argues his innocence, but he feels that because God is so great there is no use in contending with him. Job’s innocence does him no good .  The reason is that God’s “heart is wise and his strength is great”.   

Job then sings a hymn to the overwhelming power of God over his creation; he is the Master and there is no other.  He moves mountains and performs countless wonders.  But Job feels no blessings from all this.  It simply speaks of an unchallengeable power.  Job does not yet see that God’s power is controlled by goodness and justice. (cf. Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount about the universality of God’s love – Matt 5:45) 

At this point, however, Job cannot see clearly that God’s power is controlled by goodness and justice.  He sees simply a God who can do what he likes when he likes and against whom the creature has no redress. 

The power of God is illustrated in the ways he can overturn mountains and move the earth so that it shakes on its pillars.  The ancient world believed that the earth was a flat surface supported underneath by great columns.  Earthquakes, too, must have been a truly frightening experience (as they still are for us today but we at least now know their cause).  Later in the book the earth will be described as suspended over nothing (26:7). 

God can control the rising and setting of the sun and the shining of the stars.  He alone made the vast heavens and “trampled the seas’ tall waves”.  The Jerusalem Bible comments:  

In the Babylonian cosmogonies Tiamat (the Sea) cooperated in the birth of the gods and was then conquered and subdued by one of their number.  The imagination of the people, or of poets, seized on this story: Yahweh became the conqueror who then set Chaos in order and ever after held the Sea and its monsters in control. 

Canaanite texts describe the goddess Asherah as walking on the sea (or sea-god) to subdue it.  So, in the same way, God ‘treads on the waves’ to control the boisterous sea. 

It is the same God who made the vast constellations in the skies – the Great Bear (Plough), Orion and the Pleiades.  Although the ancients did not understand fully the nature of heavenly bodies they were overawed by their size and mystery and their movements, which were often believed to influence events on earth.  There was more astrology than astronomy.  They would have even been more overawed if they had known the true size and extent of the heavens. 

This hymn to the vastness of the universe, all made by an all-powerful God, only makes Job feel worse.  He wishes to argue his innocence, but he feels that because God is so great there is no use in contending with him.  Job’s innocence does him no good.  There is no use asking God, “What are you doing?”  He is answerable to no one.  “How dare I plead my cause, then, or choose arguments against him?” 

For God is both judge and jury.  “Suppose I am in the right, what use is my defence?  For he whom I must sue is judge as well.”  Job is clearly not yet clear of what is happening to him. 

He acknowledges God’s absolute power over him but at the same time questions whether it justifies the situation he now finds himself in.  Like his friends, he is still largely of the conviction that the good are rewarded and the evil punished in this life.  It is the challenging of this very belief which is at the heart of this book. 

The pain and the suffering of the good are not signs of God’s displeasure at all.  They can in time be seen positively as signs of grace and God’s love steering us into a deeper relationship with him.  Other more impersonal happenings are often simply the effects of the forces of nature (physics, chemistry and biology) which is not reasonable to expect God to interfere with. 

This is the move from passive fatalism to a positive and welcoming acceptance of whatever way God comes into our lives.  Sickness and death are not the ultimate evils; sin, the absence of truth and love, is.

Luke 9:57-62

Today’s passage has to be seen in the light of yesterday’s. Jesus has reached an important stage in his public life and mission. He is now irrevocably on his way to Jerusalem and all that that means for him – and us.

But he does not want to go alone. His whole purpose is to have people go with him. Already there are his disciples but there will be more. Today we see three “candidates” coming forward with a lot of good will but Jesus makes them aware of what following him really means. Their responses to Jesus’ remarks are not given so we do not know whether they became followers or not. The point Luke is making is to show what following entails.

a. The first says very generously that he will go wherever Jesus is going. Jesus answers: “Foxes have their lairs and the birds of the air their nests but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

These words of Jesus indicate not poverty or indigence but freedom. To follow Jesus fully one needs to be free, not to be tied down by anything and not to be anxious about having or not having things.

There is no evidence that Jesus was poor in the sense of being deprived of the necessities of life. He did not own a house but it is never even hinted that he had to sleep out in the open air. He belonged to a group of people who more than willingly shared what they had with him.

b. The second man was actually invited by Jesus to be a follower. But he asked first to be allowed to go and bury his father. This does not mean that his father had just died and he wanted to attend the funeral. It is more likely that he wanted, as a dutiful son, to wait for his father’s death before going off with Jesus.

But that is not good enough. The call of Jesus transcends needs of family, tradition and culture. The needs of the living outweigh those of the dead. His father might not die for years; what was the man supposed to do in the meantime?

Once we are aware of Jesus’ call the only time to answer is now. In spite of that, we should not read these lines too rigidly. Clearly, for example, there would be times when one would want to be present at the death of a parent, especially to provide support for the grieving spouse. That would be in total harmony with respect for parents and love for the neighbour. But the man in the example is in a totally different situation. He is talking about an event in the future whose time and place are not known.

c. Another would-be follower asked first for permission to go home and say goodbye to his family. It was similar to a request made by Elisha when he was called to succeed Elijah as prophet. Elijah’s answer was, “Go ahead.” So what we have here

seems a very reasonable request but it is rejected by Jesus who says, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Like Jesus himself turning his face towards Jerusalem and all that it means for him, once the decision has been made to serve God and his people, there can be no turning back. Again, the words of Jesus should not be taken literally.

Read in that way, they would be totally at variance with the loving and compassionate quality of Jesus’ character. The point that is being made in all three examples is the absoluteness, the unconditionally that is required in the following of Jesus. It is a theme which is emphasised more than once in Luke’s gospel. We cannot be fence-sitters, to have our cake and eat it. Being a follower of Jesus can never be a part-time affair. It is all or nothing. At the same time, the demands of agape-love are always there. It is a matter each time of discerning where the truly loving act lies.

If we are honest, a lot of us are like these men in our following of Christ and in the living out of our faith. We do have our material wants (distinct from needs), we feel we cannot live without “our little comforts in life”.

Let us pray today for a high degree of freedom in being able to accept unconditionally God’s will for us. To have that freedom is one of the greatest blessings and graces of our life.

Week 26 | Thursday

Job 19:21-27; Luke 10:1-12

Job asks his “comforters” for some genuine compassion “for the hand of God has struck me”.  His body is covered with sores and his family destroyed.  He is not sure yet why this has happened but the words of his friends do not seem to be of much help.  “Why do you hound me down, will you never have enough of my flesh?”  he asks them.  It is bad enough having God do these things to him without their aggravating the situation. 

And then, in stark contrast to what goes before and follows after (not in our readings), in the very depths of his misery, Job bursts out in a marvellous statement of faith and hope.  It is “probably the best-known and most-loved passage in the book of Job, reaching a high point in Job’s understanding of his own situation and of his relationship to God” (NIV).   

So strongly does he feel about what he is going to say that he would like it to be inscribed in stone so that it would survive his death and endure until the day when his vindication will take place. 

“I know that my Avenger lives.”  ‘Avenger’ or ‘Vindicator’ translates the Hebrew word goel, a technical term in law.  It is frequently used of God as the saviour of his people and the avenger of the oppressed and early rabbis used it of the Messiah.  In the Latin translation of St Jerome (the Vulgate) the word is translated ‘Redeemer’.  (The word seems analogous to the title given in the New Testament to the Spirit, Paraclete [parakletes, παρακλητησ], which means someone who comes to protect you and stand by your side, such as a defence lawyer in court). 

Job now in deep faith awaits his God to come and vindicate him before his friends, who have condemned him as a sinner and wrongdoer.  The Jerusalem Bible comments: 

Job, slandered and condemned by his friends, awaits a Defender who this time is God himself.  Job still believes his happiness to be lost for ever and his death to be at hand: when God undertakes to avenge his cause, it will be after his death.  Nonetheless Job hopes to witness this and to ‘see’ his vindication.  In 14:10-14 he had envisaged the possibility of a temporary shelter in Sheol, and here it would seem that he is counting on a brief return to earthly life to see his vindications accomplished; in this he is prompted by his faith in a God who can bring men back from Sheol.  Job’s faith thus momentarily defies mortal horizons in his desperate need for justice; it prepares us for the explicit revelation of bodily resurrection, cf. 2 Macc 7:9+.  

Job expresses his confidence that ultimately God will vindicate his faithful servants in the face of all false accusations.  

Job’s words of faith and hope are probably best known to us in the famous aria from Handel’s oratorio the Messiah, “I know that my Redeemer liveth”, although ‘Redeemer’ or ‘Vindicator’ here, with the hindsight of the New Testament, has a meaning going far beyond what Job is saying. 

God is also called here “the Last”, he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all things.  He will “take his stand” as judge.  And that will be the moment of Job’s justification.  Job expects to die from the physical afflictions of his body but “after my awaking” God will be close to him and he shall even “look on God”, perhaps returning to earth for a short period.   

In spite of his sufferings, he knows in his heart they are not the result of his sin and that his basic innocence and goodness will be finally recognised by his being brought face to face with the one who will vindicate him.  

Job’s great hope should be the basis of our faith, too.  We too know that our Avenger, our Vindicator, our Redeemer in the person of Jesus Christ lives and that he has gone ahead of us so that we can share with him the life that no one can take from us.

Luke 10:1-12

Two days ago we saw Jesus firmly setting out for Jerusalem and the accomplishment of his mission. Yesterday we saw how he responded to people who wanted to or were being invited to join his mission. During the coming days we will see Jesus preparing his actual disciples for their work.

In addition to the inner circle of the Twelve, we are told today that he appointed another 72 (12×6) and sent them two by two to the places he himself would be visiting. (Only Luke mentions this group.) That is a good description of our Christian role. We are supposed to go first to prepare the ground but then it is Jesus himself who comes to plant the seed of faith.

Jesus then goes on to give an instruction to his disciples. We, too, should be listening to his words:

a. He first points out that the harvest is great and there are very few labourers, few who are willing to do the harvesting work with Jesus.

This is a text which is often thrown at us during “vocation” campaigns. We tend to hear it as a call for more priests, brothers and nuns. It is that, of course, but when Jesus spoke there were no priests, brothers or nuns. The challenge was being thrown out to all his followers to find more people to join in the harvesting work.

We have to be careful as we listen to these words not to exclude ourselves because we are middle-aged, or married, or already have a career. The words are addressed to all of us and call for some kind of response from every one of us. It is never too late to respond to the call.

b. Second, Jesus warns his followers that it may not be easy. “I am sending you out as lambs among wolves.” In spite of the message of truth, love, compassion and justice that we bring, it does not mean that we will be received with open arms. On the contrary, we may meet with strong opposition and even persecution. Our message will be seen as threatening. It will be distorted and misunderstood.

c. The disciple is called on to travel light. Jesus himself “had nowhere to lay his head” and he only had the clothes he wore. So many of us are weighed down by the things we own. Some of us have to protect our property with the latest in security devices. In our search for prosperity and material security we have lost the more precious gift of freedom. They are not to stop to greet people in the sense of carrying on lengthy conversations. Their mission was urgent – there are few labourers for a potentially huge harvest.

d. They are to be bearers of peace. Peace, shalom, is much more than an absence of violence. It is a deep inner harmony with oneself, with others, with one’s environment, with God. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” We could hardly bring a more precious gift to others than this inner peace. It is, in fact, the heart of our Christian message. Faith, hope and love are the keys to peace.

e. The evangeliser is, first, to stay in the first house that accepts him. He should not be going around looking for better accommodation. At the same time, he is to be provided with shelter and hospitality for “the labourer is worthy of his hire”.

This, it seems, was the way Jesus himself lived. And this was the overall ideal of the Christian community: a network of mutually supporting people sharing their resources with each other and with those in greater need than themselves.

f. Their work is primarily to heal the sick in the places they go to. ‘Healing’ should be taken in a wider sense of including body, feelings, mind and spirit. And ‘healing’ should also be seen not just as getting rid of a sickness but of making a person whole again. Bringing healing and wholeness into the lives of individuals and communities is of the essence of the Kingdom and at the heart of Jesus’ work and that of his followers. The sign of that wholeness is inner peace. Today it is no different.

And they are to say, “The kingdom of God has come near to you.” This is not just a statement they are to throw out. It is the core of Jesus’ message and an explanation of why people are experiencing healing and wholeness coming into their lives. This is the effect of the coming of the kingdom; this is what the coming of the kingdom means. God’s power is penetrating their lives, transforming them and making them whole again.

Luke mentions the kingdom of God more than 30 times; Matthew more than 50 times. Matthew’s is truly a Gospel of the Kingdom.

The term can have a number of meanings:

- the eternal kingship (basileia) of God

- the presence of the kingdom in the person of Jesus; he is the embodiment, the incarnation of the rule of God in himself, an incarnation he wishes to be found in his disciples and the communities they establish

- the future kingdom in the life that is to come.

In short, the kingdom, the rule of God is intended to be both a present reality as well as a future hope.

g. Finally, if there is any place where they are not received, they are to leave it to its own fate. Even then those people are to know that the kingdom of God is near to them also. There is always the hope that the results of their very rejection of the kingdom will lead to a deeper awareness later on. But by rejecting the messengers of God they have opened themselves to a fate worse than that of Sodom, a city utterly destroyed because of its shameful lack of hospitality to divine visitors. But those hearing the message of Jesus are even more accountable for hearing the message of the Kingdom proclaimed to them and turning their back on it.

Clearly, we cannot literally apply all of these points to our own work on behalf of the Gospel but we need to make the underlying principles and values ours too. It will require some reflection on our part both as individuals and as communities on how we should effectively share the Gospel with those around us and be the harvesters that are so badly needed.

Indeed, let us pray for vocations but let us remember that every single one of us is being called to work in the harvest field and not just some chosen souls who are totally unknown to us.

Week 26 | Friday

Job 38:1,12-21;40:3-5; Luke 10:13-16

The three “comforters” are followed in their dialogue with Job by Elihu (chaps 32-37), who adds his own advice.   

At this point Yahweh intervenes with two speeches in which he gives Job the answers to his questions.  They cover more than four chapters altogether (38-42).  In our reading we are given short excerpts from the first speech.  And, in each case, Job will give a short response of acknowledgement. 

In a sense, the answer to the why of his suffering is that there is no answer in the sense that no human person is in a position to call in question the infinite wisdom and power of God. 

Job will now accept his situation.  He is a person of tiny significance in a vast universe which is totally beyond his comprehension.  How can he question the God who is behind it all? 

Yahweh speaks to Job “from the heart of the tempest”.  This is a traditional way of describing an appearance of God and is evocative of his overwhelming power.  Earlier Elihu had imagined the appearance of the divine presence as a display of “golden splendour” and “awesome majesty”.  He had also anticipated the storm or whirlwind from which Job would hear the voice of God.  Job had said, “Let the Almighty answer me”.  He now receives the Lord’s answer. 

Yahweh begins by asking a series of questions full of poetic images.  They compare the almighty power of the creator God with the impotence of Job, the creature. 

Yahweh begins by asking Job if he had ever given orders to the morning or sent the dawn to its place.  ‘Morning’ and ‘Dawn’ are seen as distinct entities.  Obviously, the answer is No.  Only the Master of the Universe could do such a thing. The light also has the effect of driving the wicked into hiding; they cannot tolerate the light and love darkness.  (Jesus will say something in the same vein.)  Again, this is clearly far beyond the capabilities of Job. 

“When [the dawn] changes the earth to sealing clay and dyes it as a man dyes clothes.”  Here is a wonderful picture of the dawn breaking over the earth and changing the colours of everything as the sun rises.  The “sealing clay” is deep red in colour.   

Has Job ever gone to the “sources of the sea”? It was believed that there were springs under the earth which supplied the seas with water, or has he been to the Abyss, the depths beyond the confines of the earth?  Has he been to the “gates of death” or seen the janitors of “Shadowland” or Sheol, the place of the dead.   

Does Job have even the faintest idea of the extent of the earth?  The vast majority of people in those days, even the rich, had not travelled far from their home and had no way of knowing what the rest of even the inhabited world was like.  We need to remember it was not until the end of the 15th century of our era when the great sea explorations began that people had any idea of the size and shape of our planet and even longer before we began to penetrate the mysteries of the skies above our heads. 

Job had never been to the homes of Light and Darkness, ideas thought of as distinct from the sun and moon (as they are in the creation story of Genesis where Light is created before the Sun). 

All of these are places to which only God has access.  If Job did know these things, he might have some power to control them but, in fact, he is totally powerless.  If he did know all these things, he would now be very ancient indeed!  But so limited is Job’s knowledge that he is in absolutely no situation to question anything that God does. 

In the last part of the reading, which is Job’s response to God, he is for all practical purposes reduced to stammering and speechlessness.  “I had better lay my finger on my lips.”  He will no longer complain because his grasp of the situation is so weak. 

How can he call to account a Yahweh who is so vast in his power, while Job is so little?  He can have no idea of the full picture of things. 

We know many things about our world and environment which were completely unknown to Job.  But, in spite of all that we have discovered in the intervening centuries, life is still largely a mystery and we are equally unable to explain why many things happen to us or what goes on in the mysterious wisdom of God. 

The only response that gives peace is to hold on to the conviction that he is a God of truth, of love, of compassion and of justice.  And, in spite of the disorder and chaos and violence, our world is shot through with Truth, Love and Beauty.  As the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins said: “The world is charged with the grandeur of God” and “There lives the deepest freshness deep down things”.  Lord, that we may see!

Luke 10:13-16

Strong words today from Jesus against towns where he had preached extensively – Chorazin, Bethsaida and especially Capernaum.

Chorazin is only mentioned twice in the Bible, here and in the parallel passage of Matt 11:21. It was near the Sea of Galilee and probably between 3 and 4 km north of Capernaum. Bethsaida, the home of some of Jesus’ disciples, was on the north-east shore of the Sea of Galilee. It had been built by Philip the Tetrarch, who called it ‘Julias’ after Julia, a daughter of the emperor Caesar Augustus. Capernaum, situated on the north shore of the lake, appears frequently in the Gospel narratives and was the centre from which Jesus did much of his missionary work. His work and preaching would have been most familiar to the people there.

Jesus says that if the Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon had witnessed all that Jesus had said and done in those towns of Palestine they would have repented long ago, just as the pagan people of Niniveh had repented at the preaching of Jonah. Tyre and Sidon were towns on the Phoenician coast, north of Palestine (Lebanon today). Jesus was said to have visited the area just once and only very briefly so the people there did not have an opportunity to witness Jesus’ miracles or hear his preaching unlike the people in the towns mentioned above.

And Jesus goes further. Addressing his disciples he says, “He that hears you, hears me and he that despises you despises me” and the Father who sent him. In other words, to listen to the messengers of Jesus is equivalent to listening to him personally; to reject those messengers is to reject Jesus and to reject God.

And, in our own times, perhaps we should emphasise that those “messengers” are not just bishops, priests and religious. They include all those who sincerely proclaim the Gospel by their words and their lives.

It might be no harm then for each of us today to hear those warnings of Jesus addressed to ourselves. How well have we really responded to the call of Jesus in the Gospel? How open are we to hear that message coming to us from different kinds of people in our community? How committed are we to accepting, living and sharing that Gospel with others?

Might it be true to say that there are people in other parts of our world, our country, our society who, if they were given what we have been given, who heard what we hear, would respond much more generously than we have done?

There is never any room for complacency in our Christian life. Because we have been given so much so much more is expected of us. As Jesus says elsewhere we may be very surprised to see others, who never had an opportunity directly to hear the Gospel, go before us into God’s Kingdom.

Week 26 | Saturday

Job 42:1-3,5-6,12-17; Luke 10:17-24

Today we have Job’s final response to Yahweh and the restoration of his fortunes.  The reading is in two parts. In the first we have Job’s last words and they are his reply to the second speech of Yahweh (which we have not read in the liturgy). 

They are a final statement of total acceptance of everything that God decides and of what happens to Job. “I know that you, Yahweh, are all-powerful: what you conceive, you can perform.”  Job now finally sees that God and his purposes are supreme and are not to be questioned by him.  He says an unconditional ‘Yes’ to his Lord.  

Job regrets that, because of his limitations, he had “obscured [God’s] designs with [his] empty-headed words”.  He has been talking about things he did not really understand.  But now he has seen with his own eyes.  This is not strictly speaking an actual vision of God but rather a graced insight into the nature of God.  Previously, Job had very conventional ideas about God, mainly derived from others.  But now he has had a direct experience of God’s mystery and submits totally to the Almighty.  His questions have not really been answered but he now understands that he cannot question what happens under God and that there are deeper meanings to the realities of suffering and death.  He can now accept that his suffering, pain and loss are not incompatible with the wisdom and power of God. 

So, in his very last words, he expresses deep regret for all the things he has said, especially his complaints against God for what he has experienced.  “I retract all I have said” by way of complaints against God, he says, “and in dust and ashes I repent”. 

The second part is the final paragraph in the book and (unlike the dialogues) is in prose form.  The contest between God and Satan is over.  Job has not cursed God and has come triumphantly through the most painful trials.  Comments the NIV: 

The cosmic contest with the accuser is now over, and Job is restored.  No longer is there a reason for Job to experience suffering – unless he was sinful and deserved it, which is not the case.  God does not allow us to suffer for no reason, and even though the reason may be hidden in the mystery of his divine purpose – never for us to know in this life – we must trust in him as the God who does only what is right. 

Job’s fortunes are now restored; he gains back even more than he lost.  The number of animals is twice as many as he had before.  His seven (perfect number) sons and three daughters replace the children he lost in the hurricane. 

We do not know anything about the boys but we are told the names of the three daughters – Jemimah, which means “dove”; Keziah (Cassia) which means “cinnamon”; and Keren-Happuch (“Mascara” in the Jerusalem Bible) which means “container of antimony”.  Antimony was a much-desired form of eyeshadow.  The girls were all outstanding in beauty and, contrary to normal custom, would receive the same inheritance rights as their brothers – an indication of Job’s great wealth.  Normally daughters would only inherit if there were no sons. 

Finally, Job, in the tradition of the true biblical patriarch, lived to be 140 years old and saw his descendants to the fourth generation. 

The Greek text of the book (which does not appear in our reading) has two additions to the end of the text.  The first indicates that, from very early on, this book was thought to contain the idea of resurrection after death.  “It is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise up.”  The second tells us that Job lived “in the land of Ausitis on the borders of Idumaea and Arabia” and identifies Ausitis with Jobab, a king mentioned in Genesis (36:33).  

The epilogue, in a way, seems to contradict the teaching of the dialogues which challenge the conventional idea that the good are rewarded and the evil punished in this life.  Rather the lesson is that there is no relationship between God’s wisdom and the experiences that we have in life.   

Material blessings are not a guarantee of personal virtue any more than material deprivation or sickness are punishments for sin.  As St Paul will say later, “Everything works together for the good of those who love God.”  Paul never saw his own sufferings and hardships as a punishment from God but rather as an opportunity and a grace to share somehow in the sufferings of the Jesus his Lord. 

These ideas, of course, would not come until later.  The sufferings of Job are seen primarily by the biblical author as a test of Job’s virtue.  Once he has passed the test, there is now every reason for his wealth to be returned to him.  The idea of wealth as a concrete sign of God’s blessing has not been altogether abandoned.  This notion will be radically changed when, to the astonishment of his disciples, Jesus says that it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom where the “poor in spirit” will be among the blessed.  

For us, God’s blessings are seen not in our material possessions but in internal blessings like inner consolation, joy, peace and shared fellowship.

Luke 10:17-24

We saw at the beginning of chapter 10 how Jesus had sent his 72 disciples out to all the places where he himself would visit. Today we see them returning full of joy and satisfaction. “Lord, even the demons were subject to us in your name.” They discovered that, in his name, they were able to do the same things that Jesus did.

In reply, Jesus said to them: “I saw Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” The power of evil is being reversed and this was partly the doing of his disciples working in his name. And he further reassures them: “I give you the power to tread on snakes and scorpions and over the power of the enemy: nothing at all will be able to hurt you.”

‘Snakes and scorpions’ more likely represent evil powers and so the statement is not to be taken literally and still less to be tested (as some obscure sects have tried to do with predictably tragic consequences!). It is true that for the committed disciple nothing can really hurt them. Physically, maybe, but not their real selves. Nothing, as Paul says, can separate us from the love of God, that is, the love that God extends to us at every moment of every day.

Then Jesus tells his disciples the real reason why they should be happy. It is not because they have special powers over evil spirits but “because your names are written in heaven”. In other words, their blessedness comes not from what they are able to do but because they have been chosen as the instruments for God to do his work, to make the Kingdom a reality. That is the origin of our blessedness too.

Then follows a beautiful prayer of Jesus to the Father. He thanks the Father because all that is coming into the world through Jesus is being made known not to the wise and great ones of this world but to “the little ones”, the people who, in the eyes of the majority, are of no account. No one really knows the Son except the Father. And no one really knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals the Father.

And, since that day on the lake shore when Jesus called four fishermen to be his followers, he has been calling very ordinary people to know his identity, to hear his message and share his vision.

And so he can say truly to them, “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see. Many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see and have not seen them, to hear what you have heard and not heard them.”

All of this applies to so many of us, too. We, for reasons only known to God himself, have been given knowledge of the Son. We too, by means of the Church, have been given a vision denied to so many, have heard the Word which is the Way to truth and life.

Whatever problems we may be facing right now, let us on this day count our blessings and express our gratitude for them. And the only way to do that is to say ‘Yes’ to Jesus and his Gospel. Let us start doing that right now.

Week 27 | Monday

Galatians 1:6-12

We begin today reading Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and will stay with it until Wednesday of next week.

Galatia was a province of the Roman Empire in what is now central Turkey. Its name implies that it was originally peopled by people of Celtic origin. There is some dispute as to whether Paul is addressing Christians in the area that was, strictly speaking Galatian (the north ) or the whole of the Roman province of Galatia which, in the south, included parts which were not strictly speaking Galatian. It is not an important issue for us in our understanding of the contents of his message. 

It is a very contentious letter in which Paul attacks unknown missionaries who have been telling the baptised gentile Galatians that they must adopt some of the traditional Jewish customs, especially that of circumcision, as a mark of the their Christian identity. Paul disagrees vigorously with this teaching. In the process, he says many other things of great significance for our Christian lives.

Today’s reading consists of a warning expressed in rather strong language. It takes the place of the usual thanksgiving for the graces experienced by the local church with which Paul’s letters usually begin. In fact, at no time in the letter does Paul have words of praise for the Galatian Christians.

Paul is deeply concerned with what he regards as a rather hasty and sudden change in the Galatians’ beliefs so soon after their conversion. They have, in fact, turned away from the One who called them. He accuses them of following a different Gospel and in so doing of basically turning away from the Gospel that Jesus gave and from the call they received from Jesus Christ.

This, Paul says, is the work of “troublemakers”. In the course of the letter we will see that these ‘troublemakers’ are ‘Judaisers’. He is referring to Jews who had converted to Christianity and who wanted even the Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians to incorporate Jewish customs, especially circumcision, as an integral part of their Christian living. 

Paul asserts that there is only one Gospel of Christ and that is the one they heard from him. And anyone who preaches a different Gospel is “anathema” and is to be condemned. The Greek word anathema originally referred to an offering made in a pagan temple for a vow. Later it came to represent a curse. 

In fact, says Paul, if anyone were to preach a different Gospel from the one originally proclaimed to them, whether it be an angel of God or even Paul himself, that person is to be condemned and rejected.

It is clear that some of the Judaising people were accusing Paul of “currying favour”, that is, trying to make conversion easier for Gentiles by not insisting on Jewish customs, especially circumcision (which, in those times, would have been quite a painful – and even dangerous – operation for adult males). While, on other occasions, Paul showed himself sensitive to the weaknesses of Gentiles, he strongly affirms that that is not the case here.

Paul rejects that accusation. If he really wanted these customs to be preserved, he would have remained what he formerly was – a devout Pharisee. But now he is a “slave of Christ” and he follows the Way of Christ whether that wins people’s approval or not, because only there does he find salvation and true liberation.

Finally, he emphasises that the “Good News” he preaches is not a human invention but comes “through a revelation of Jesus Christ”. In so saying, he is not asserting that everything he knows about the Gospel of Christ comes through direct revelation. Much of what he believed came through the disciples of Jesus who instructed him. And the key to salvation is faith/trust in the message of Jesus and not in external observance of a Law. That will be a central point in this whole letter.

For us, too, the same is true. It is possible for the Christian to get hung up on various external acts and obligations which are identified with Christianity (or Catholicism). We may never miss Sunday Mass, we may even keep observing abstinence on Fridays and yet many things in our lives may be far removed from the spirit of the Gospel. We need to reflect on just what makes a “good Catholic”.

Gospel - Luke 10:25-37

As we accompany Jesus firmly on his way to Jerusalem we come across this beautiful incident which is only to be found in Luke. (Imagine our loss if this gospel had not been handed down to us. And what other treasures of Jesus have we in fact lost over the centuries?)

We are told that a scribe approached Jesus with the intention of putting him on the defensive and perhaps making him contradict the teaching of the Law. (Was this just a single attack or was it part of a conspiracy?) The question sounded simple, the kind that anyone would put to a religious teacher: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” As so often happens, Jesus throws the question back at his interrogator. In fact, as a scribe, the man should already know the answer and Jesus asks him his opinion.

He replies as a Scribe might be expected to, not in his own words, but quoting two passages from the Pentateuch, from the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus which say we are to love God with all our heart and soul and our neighbour as ourselves. “Well done,” says Jesus. “Do that and life is yours.”

However, the man is not satisfied. “Anxious to justify himself”, he asks for the meaning of the word “neighbour”. For him the word meant, of course, only other Jews like himself but did it include every Jew, even those who did not follow the Law? Was he supposed to love them also?

The answer Jesus gave must have come as a surprise, not to say a shock. And it came in the form of a kind of parable. It is the story we know as the Good Samaritan. In the eyes of most Jews of the time such a term would be a contradiction. It would be like speaking in not so distant days of a “good Communist” or in more recent times of a “good terrorist”.

It is most likely (for the story to have meaning) that the man who was set upon by robbers and left half dead on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho was a Jew. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was a distance of about 30 km and involved a drop from about 800 metres above sea level to about 150 metres below sea level. It ran through rocky and desert country providing ample opportunity for hidden robbers to waylay unwitting travellers.

In the story three people saw him there. Two of them were religious people, people expected to be lovers of God and neighbour. Yet both carefully passed by on the other side. It is most likely that they were going in the opposite direction, that is, they were on their way from Jericho to Jerusalem and the Temple. The injured man would have been covered in blood. No one intending to go to pray in the Temple would dare to contaminate oneself and become ritually unclean by coming in contact with blood. In other words, they ignored the man for religious reasons.

But then a Samaritan came by. He was, in the eyes of the Jews, an alien and a heretic. There was strong hostility between the two neighbouring peoples on historical, geographical, racial and religious grounds. The Samaritan was regarded as a half-breed both physically and spiritually. They were ethnically related and shared some of the Jewish beliefs but were seen as heretics, ‘half-Jews’. We remember how surprised the Samaritan woman by the well of Jacob was when she was spoken to by Jesus, who would have been expected to ignore her.

This despised outsider, presumed to have nothing of the spirit of God’s mercy and compassion, gives the Jew lying on the ground the attention that the two other religious-minded men refuse to give. In fact, the Samaritan went to extraordinary lengths to take care of the injured man, sparing no expense. Two silver coins may not seem very much but it represented two day’s wages and would have been enough to keep someone for up to two months in a wayside inn.

It is difficult for us at this distance to understand the impact that such a story would have had on the traditional Jewish listener, not to mention a scribe. In our world today it would be something like a Palestinian terrorist coming to the help of a militant Israeli who has been abandoned by fellow-Israelis (or vice versa); it would be something like a violently anti-Catholic North of Ireland Protestant being helped by an IRA member while two ardent Unionists do not want to get involved.

Perhaps the reader can think of examples closer to home.

The question of Jesus is interesting: “Which of the three was a neighbour to the man who was waylaid?” The answer of the scribe is equally interesting: “The one who showed compassion towards him.”

The answer then to the question, “Who is my neighbour?” is not, as we learnt in our catechism, “Everybody”, though that is true. The answer of Jesus is: “A neighbour is someone who shows compassion to another in need - irrespective of who the helper or the person in need may be.” It is less a question of seeing every other person as my neighbour but, much more importantly, of my being actively a neighbour to others, not on the basis of their race, nationality, occupation, gender, skin colour, personality but on the basis of need. And who does not need love and compassion?

Finally, in answer to an academic, theological question, “Who is my neighbour?” Jesus tells the scribe not WHAT or WHO is his neighbour but to go and BE a neighbour.

The story has a secondary lesson for us about stereotyping. For the Jews there was the negative stereotype of the Samaritan (which was probably reciprocated). Our world today is full of stereotypes. We have stereotypes of practically every race and ethnic group and skin colour and they can influence our attitudes deeply and often unconsciously.

Certainly, each race can have recognisable characteristics - Jews, Italians, Irish, Germans, French, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Africans - arising from language and traditions but it is an irrational jump to attribute to every member of a group generalised characteristics.

We can never say that “Irish are…”, or “Chinese are…”, or “Africans are…” There are too many exceptions. Every individual person has to be approached individually and there are good, bad and indifferent people to be found in every group, including our own. But they all have one thing in common: they should be confident of being helped by good neighbours in their time of need.

Week 27 | Tuesday

Galatians 1:13-24

Paul takes up where he left off yesterday. He continues to answer the charge that, by waiving the need for Gentiles to be circumcised after their conversion, he was being “soft” on them. 

On the contrary, Paul reminds the Galatians, before his own conversion, he had been absolutely totally committed to Judaism. By this he meant the Jewish faith and way of life that had developed during the late period between the Old and New Testament times. The term is derived from Judah, the southern kingdom that came to an end in the sixth century BC with the exile into Babylonia. As a devout Jew and a Pharisee, Paul had been ruthless in trying to wipe out the “church of God”, the assembly (ecclesia) of God’s people which he now identifies with the Christian community, the New Testament counterpart of the Old Testament assembly.

In fact, so loyal was he to his Jewish traditions, that Paul stood out among his fellow Jews for the zeal with which he attacked the followers of Jesus. These traditions, also called in the Gospel the “tradition of the elders” refer to traditions orally transmitted from generation to generation and are to be distinguished from the written law that came through Moses.

After the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish rabbis began to make meticulous rules and regulations governing the daily life of the people. These were interpretations and applications of the law of Moses, handed down from generation to generation. In Jesus’ day this ‘tradition of the elders’ was in oral form. It was not until about AD 200 that it was put into writing in the Mishnah. (NIV)

Paul at this time saw the Christians as a dangerous deviation from the Jewish traditions who had to be stopped at all costs.

But then a great change came over Paul. Like some of the earlier prophets (Isaiah and Jeremiah), Paul had been chosen by God long before his birth for a very special mission. He was given the special grace and blessing of first having Jesus the Son revealed to him so that then he might share with Gentiles, that is, foreigners or non-Jews, the Good News that Jesus brings. 

As if to emphasise the direct nature of the revelation he received, he stresses that at this time he did not discuss his experience with anyone nor was he in contact with any of the apostles still in Jerusalem, which was both the religious centre of Judaism and the birthplace of Christianity. He wants to emphasise that his change of heart was the result of the direct influence of God and not due to persuasive arguments from human beings. 

Instead Paul went off to “Arabia”. This probably indicates the desert kingdom of the Nabataean Arabs on the east side of the Jordan River which stretched from Damascus to Suez. Damascus was (and is) the capital of Syria and was, of course, also the scene of Paul’s (Saul’s) dramatic conversion. 

We do not know how long Paul stayed in the desert but three years later he tells us he was in Jerusalem and stayed with Peter (Kephas in Aramaic) for about two weeks. The word Cephas comes from the Aramaic word for “stone” (see Matt 16:18). In the Greek Peter is petros (πετροσ) and “rock” is petra (πετρα). The name designates a like quality in the bearer (see John 1:42). However, in the Gospels, Peter is anything but a rock but impulsive and unstable. In Acts, he is a pillar of the early church and clearly its recognised leader. Jesus named him not for what he was but for what, by God’s grace, he would become.

Except for James, who seems to have been the leading elder in the Jerusalem church at the time, Paul says he did not see anyone else. Clearly, the only effective influence on his new life at this time was Jesus himself. 

After this visit, he went back to Syria and then on to Cilicia, a Roman province in southern Turkey. We know he actually went to Tarsus, the main city of Cilicia and Paul’s place of origin. 

He was still relatively unknown to the Christians in the Jerusalem area, who only knew that their one-time persecutor “was now preaching the faith he had previously tried to destroy”. And they thanked God for that turn of events. But it is clear enough that Paul was not yet quite ready to become part of the Christian mission. Let us reflect today on our calling for we, too, were chosen before our birth to be followers of Jesus. Why us and not others is a mystery we will never be able to answer. As we go through life we may receive other callings and I could ask myself today to what kind of service is Jesus calling me at this time in my life?

Let us recall and give thanks to God also for the very many people who, directly or indirectly, have brought and continue to bring a deeper understanding of Christ into my life.

Luke 10:38-42

Today we find Jesus in the home of the sisters, Mary and Martha. We know that they have a brother named Lazarus. We meet the sisters again, showing the same characteristics as in this story, in John’s account of the raising from death of their brother. They lived in Bethany, a village about 3-4 km from Jerusalem and it seems that Jesus was a familiar visitor to the house for at the time of Lazarus’ illness Jesus is told: “Your friend Lazarus is sick.”

The story of Martha and Mary is, in a way, a contrast to the previous story about the Good Samaritan. It restores a balance in our following of Christ. The story about being a neighbour could lead us to think that only if we are doing things are we loving God.

Martha was a doer to the point of being a fusspot. Martha, we are told, was “burdened with much serving”. Serving is something that Jesus himself did constantly and he urged his followers to do the same. But it should not be a burden. And, after Martha had complained about her sister, Jesus told her that she was “anxious and worried about many things”. A true servant does not experience anxiety and worry. It signifies a lack of peace.

Because Mary seemed to be doing nothing, Martha saw her as idling and even selfish. Martha must have been somewhat surprised when Jesus said that Mary had “chosen the better part” which would “not be taken from her”.

What was that better part? Was Mary just sitting at the feet of Jesus and doing nothing? No. We are told that she was “listening to him speak”. Listening to his message is something Jesus tells his disciples and the crowd they need to be doing all the time. And we have mentioned before that listening involves understanding, accepting and assimilating that message so that it becomes part of our very selves

If we do not spend time listening to him, how can we know that our activity is properly directed? It is easy for us Christians to be very busy but are we busy about the right things?

To answer that question we have to stop to listen, to discern and to pray. And, ultimately, the highest form of activity in our lives is contemplation, being in conscious contact with God and his Word. If I find myself saying that I do not have time to give some time to prayer or contemplation each day, then there is a serious imbalance in my priorities and in my understanding of what it means to love and serve my God.

This story blends nicely with the parable of the Good Samaritan which went before it. Taken together they express what should be the essence of Christian living - action for others that is guided by what we learn in contemplation. This was the pattern of Jesus’ own life - he spent long hours bringing healing to people’s lives (being a neighbour) but also retired to quiet places to be alone in communion with his Father. The same pattern must be ours too. We call it being “contemplatives in action”.

Week 27 | Wednesday

Galatians 2:1-2,7-14

We carry on from yesterday’s reading and today Paul tells us of how he began his mission. 

It is fourteen years later and Paul finds himself again in Jerusalem. This is dating either from his return to Tarsus, his meeting with Peter on his last visit, or his conversion at Damascus. It is not clear and it does not really matter. In any case, it is quite a lengthy period during which Paul must have grown greatly in his understanding of Christ and the Gospel.

This time he went in the company of two people whom he had come to know during these years and who would be closely involved in his evangelising work – Barnabas and Titus. 

Barnabas means “one who encourages”. His other given name was Joseph and we know that he was a Levite from Cyprus. He would also accompany Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-14:28). Titus was a gentile Christian. He served as Paul’s representative in Corinth and later went to Crete to “oversee”, to be an episcopus (’επισκοποσ) over the church there. 

Paul says he went to Jerusalem as the result of a private revelation. His main purpose was to let the leaders of the church in Jerusalem – Peter, James and John – know how he was proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles, the non-Jewish “foreigners”. He specifically went to the leadership because he knew there were elements among the Christians in Jerusalem who were strongly opposed to accepting Gentiles into the church, especially when they did not follow the Jewish traditions. 

Paul says he went “so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain”. In other words, he was anxious that his preaching be in harmony with the teaching of the Jerusalem church, the “mother” church. It is not that he doubted the rightness of what he was doing but he was concerned that when new churches were founded they should keep in touch with the mother church. It is why, later on, he will agree with the request to support poorer churches (of which Jerusalem seems to have been one). 

The leaders in Jerusalem gave him their full endorsement. They recognised that Paul had been called to proclaim the Gospel to the “uncircumcised” just as Peter was called to proclaim it to the “circumcised”. In fact, Paul did not just confine himself to the Gentiles. When he arrived for the first time in a town he nearly always headed straight for the synagogue. Often, of course, he was rejected by the local Jews. So, he saw himself as primarily an apostle to the Gentiles. 

And, as far as Paul is concerned, the two distinct apostolates of Peter and himself were assigned by the Lord himself. 

A kind of contract was then made. James, Peter and John (notice the order), the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church, shared the right hand of fellowship with Paul and Barnabas. Among both Hebrews and Greeks, this was a common practice indicating a promise of friendship. It was agreed that the former would concentrate on working among the Jews while Paul and Barnabas devoted themselves mainly to the Gentiles. This division, as we have seen, was mainly geographical as Paul did reach out to Jews as well as Gentiles but confined himself generally to territories where Gentiles were in the majority.

There was one proviso: that Paul would remember to give help to the poor, something he was only too happy to do. The “poor” seemed to mean mainly the Christians of the Jerusalem church who had to be regularly helped by the churches of Asia Minor and Greece, as the Acts tell us. 

In the second half of the reading we find Paul back in Antioch in Syria. Antioch was the main city in Syria and, after Rome and Alexandria in Egypt, the third largest city in the Roman empire. It was already becoming a major Christian centre, especially with those working among the Gentiles, and Paul used it as a home base during his missionary journeys. 

Here we find a showdown taking place between Paul and Peter. Peter, who in a vision (recorded in the Acts) had been told by Jesus that there was no such thing as ritually “unclean” food, had baptised the first Gentile Christian and had been mixing freely with Gentiles and eating with them.

However, when some followers of James arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, Peter refrained from doing so because he did not want to offend those Jewish Christians who insisted on circumcision and other Jewish customs e.g. concerning ritual cleanliness and the avoidance of eating ‘forbidden’ food. Other Jewish Christians and even Barnabas (who was a Levite Jew) began to follow Peter’s example. 

Paul became very angry at this compromising of an essential principle which had already been agreed on. He opposed Peter “to his face”. Not only that, in the presence of everyone he declared that Peter, although a born Jew, had been living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. He had no right, then, to be imposing Jewish ways on Gentiles which was the message his behaviour was giving.

It was not a question here, as Paul practised elsewhere, of not giving scandal to weaker brethren by enforcing one’s own belief and practices (cf. Acts 16:3; 21:26; 1 Cor 8:13; Rom 14:21; 1 Cor 9:20). Peter was giving out a misleading message. Peter’s behaviour should have advertised his real attitude but instead of that he disguised it. He was suggesting, by following the Judaisers’ ways, that the only true Christians were converted Jews who followed the Law. This could only result in two separate communities which could not then celebrate the “breaking of bread” together.

There is a radical difference between accommodating the weak and compromising with essential principles. In Paul’s eyes, Peter was guilty of the latter and he had to be challenged.

The problem was especially relevant to the Galatian situation where Jewish Christians were trying to impose Jewish customs, including circumcision, on Gentile Christians. Peter’s misleading behaviour was not at all helpful in such a situation, especially as it did not represent his own beliefs.

Today, there is a good deal of discussion about the extent to which our leaders can be challenged in the Church. There will always be a tension between what we may call the ‘institutional’ and ‘prophetic’ wings of the Church. While some would prefer perfect harmony between all members, it is not the way the Church has operated from its earlier days. We must not confuse ‘unity’ with ‘uniformity’. Unity presupposes harmony between differing elements.

We need the ‘institutional’ as the conservers of orthodoxy and tradition and continuity. But we need the ‘prophetic’ to arouse us to the need to adapt our message to changing needs and changing situations in a constantly changing world. No change means stagnation and ultimate death; too much change means loss of identity.

We have to keep a balance between both so there will always be ‘Pauls’ opposing ‘Peters’ to their face. This is not to say that the Peter the conserver is usually wrong and Paul the ®evolutionary is always right. Most of the time, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Careful discernment is needed at such times. One of the truest signs that we are on the right track is that the ultimate result is greater unity. The truth can never divide because there can only be one truth.

Luke 11:1-4

It is surely no coincidence that Jesus’ commendation of Mary for spending time listening to Jesus should be followed by a section on prayer.

Luke’s gospel has been called the Gospel of Prayer. It is in his gospel, more than any of the others, that we are told about Jesus praying, especially before the more important moments of his public life, such as at his baptism, the choosing of the Twelve, before Peter’s confession of his Messiahship and in the garden before his Passion.

Today we see Jesus just praying somewhere and we get the impression that it was something he did quite often. We mentioned earlier that it was perfectly natural for Jesus to pray to his Father, if we understand by prayer being in close contact with God.

Sometimes it will be to ask him for help in our lives or in making the right decision, sometimes it will be to thank and praise him, sometimes it will be to pray on behalf of someone else and sometimes it will just to be in his company. We saw this yesterday with Mary of Bethany sitting quietly at the feet of Jesus listening to him. In fact, a lot of our prayer should be in silent listening. Some people talk so much in their prayer that God cannot get a word in! And then they complain he does not answer their prayers!

After seeing him pray on this occasion, Jesus’ disciples asked him to teach them how to pray.  In reply, he gives them what we know as the Lord’s Prayer. It is not quite the form we are familiar with, which comes from Matthew’s gospel. It is simpler but the basic structure is still the same.

Matthew’s text has seven petitions (we know how he likes the number ‘seven’) but Luke only five.  It is believed that Matthew follows an earlier form which may be closer to Luke’s.

When Jesus taught this to his disciples did he mean that praying meant reciting this formula at regular intervals? In fact, it is (in Matthew’s version) a formula we all know by heart and which we recite regularly during the Eucharist, when we say the Rosary and on many other occasions. But it seems more likely that Jesus intended to do more than just teach them a formula to be recited. It is probably much better to see his words as an answer to their request: “Lord, teach us how to pray.” This is not the same as “Teach us some prayers to say/recite.”

We will get much more out of the Lord’s Prayer if we take each petition separately and see each one as a theme about which we can pray. We can take each petition separately and spend time praying around each one. When we do that seriously and conscientiously we will see that it is a very challenging prayer.

Let us briefly look at the petitions as they are in Luke:

Father:

To begin with, let us not get into arguments about God’s gender. We can address God as either Father or Mother; the basic meaning is that God is the source of life, that God is the Creator of every living thing. In addressing God as Father (or Mother) we are acknowledging that we are children, sons and daughters, of God. But if we are children of the one God, then we are brothers and sisters to each other. And there can be no exceptions to this, not even one.

Is this what I mean when I utter the word “Father”? Am I prepared to see every single person on the face of this earth, irrespective of race, nationality, skin colour, class, occupation, age, religion, behaviour… as my brother and sister? If not, I have to stop praying at this first word. We can begin to see now what teaching his disciples to pray meant to Jesus as well as to them and us.

May your name be held holy:

God’s name is already holy and nothing we can do can make it any more so. In this petition we are rather asking that the whole world recognise the holiness of God, that the whole world sing with the angels, “Holy, holy, holy…” God does not need this but we do. And when we sing like this in all sincerity then we are saying that we belong to him and recognise him as Lord. And it is, in fact, another way of expressing the following petition…

Your kingdom come:

We refer frequently in these reflections to the Kingdom. It is that world where God’s reign prevails in people’s hearts and minds and relationships. A world where people have submitted gladly to that reign and experience the truth and love and beauty of God in their lives and in the way they react with the people around them. It produces a world of freedom, peace and justice for all.

In praying this petition, though, we are not just asking God to bring it about while we sit back and wait. We are also committing ourselves to be partners with God in bringing it about. Our co-operation in this work is of vital importance. To be a Christian, to be a disciple of Jesus is essentially to be involved in this task of making the Kingdom a reality. And it has to begin right now; it is not just to be left to a future existence. (In Matthew’s version we pray: ‘Your kingdom come on earth…’)Like many of these petitions, it is a prayer that God’s will be carried through our involvement. Again it is a really challenging prayer.

Give us each day our daily bread:

A prayer that we will be always provided with what we need for our daily living. There is a highly dangerous word buried in the petition. That word is “us”. To whom does “us” refer? My family? my friends? my work companions? my village, town, city, country, nationality, race? Surely it refers to all God’s children without exception.

If that is the case, then we are praying that every single person be supplied with their daily needs. But that cannot happen unless we all get involved. The petition is not simply passing the buck to God. The feeding of our brothers and sisters is the responsibility of all. Yet millions are hungry, other millions suffer from malnutrition as well as being deprived of many of the other essentials of dignified living. Clearly, we are not doing all we could to see that all of “us” have “our” daily bread. So again this is a very dangerous prayer.

It is even more dangerous when we say it in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the sacrament or sign of a community that takes care of all its members and of others in need. It is the sacrament of breaking bread with brothers and sisters. If we leave the Eucharistic table and do nothing about this then our sign has been a sham.

Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is in debt to us:

How easily we say this again and again! Yet it is a very frightening thing to do: to put God’s forgiving us conditional on our forgiving others. Forgiveness and reconciliation must be part and parcel of Christian living and we all know that at times it can be very difficult. Yet, as we see in the book of Jonah (read during Cycle I at this time), our God is so ready to forgive. To be like him, to be “perfect” is to have that same readiness to forgive. Our deepest urge should be not to condemn and punish but to rehabilitate and restore to life.

Do not put us to the test:

We are surrounded by forces which can draw us away from God and all that is true, good and beautiful. We pray that we will not succumb permanently to anything of the sort. We need constantly God’s liberating hand to lift us up as he lifted the drowning Peter. This is the one petition where we depend totally on God’s help.

The Lord’s Prayer is beautiful. It is challenging. It needs to be taken slowly and meditatively so that we have time to enter deeply into each petition. Perhaps as we pray we can stop at just one petition which at this time is particularly meaningful to us and leave the others for another time. It is primarily not a formula to be recited but themes for prayer. Any one petition is enough to last a long time.

Week 27 | Thursday

Galatians 3:1-5

Paul now zeroes in on the Galatians themselves for allowing themselves to be led astray by the Judaising “missionaries” who had been working among them. “Are you out of your minds?” he asks them. Has someone put some kind of spell on them? It is not that they were mentally deficient but they had failed to see the falseness of what they were being led into. Are they not aware that the foundation of all their beliefs is their having been saved by Jesus Christ who died publicly on the cross and rose again? This is not a secret but a well-known fact. There are echoes here, perhaps, of the bronze snake that Moses displayed on a pole and which saved the lives of all those who looked on it.

Was it through carrying out the external requirements of the Law (e.g. by circumcision and dietary practices) that they had received the Spirit or rather because they had committed themselves in faith and trust to the message of the Gospel which had been proclaimed to them? (Paul will mention the Spirit 16 times altogether in this letter.)

Are they silly enough to reduce their reliance on the Spirit to the mere observance of some external ritual actions? Have they exchanged the guidance of the spirit for dependence on things of the “flesh”, mere human entities? Trying to achieve righteousness by works, including circumcision, was a part of life in the “flesh”. What can these actions achieve by themselves? Nothing! Has all Paul’s preaching been for nothing?

Is their experience of the Spirit and the working of miracles among them because they practise the Law or because they have submitted completely in faith to the Gospel which was proclaimed to them? As in the Letter to the Romans, Paul will emphasise here again and again that it is only the work of the Spirit within us that produces worthy actions.

In the verse following our reading, Paul reminds the Galatians of Abraham who “believed in God and it was credited to his righteousness”. Abraham, against all common sense, was ready to sacrifice his only legitimate son, the only person who could carry on the family line which Yahweh had promised him. Once that trusting faith had been tested, the son was spared. In his Letter to the Romans, Paul will have much to say about Abraham as a model of trusting faith in God’s word. 

We cannot “earn” God’s love by the fulfilling of self-initiated activities, even by the observance of moral or religious laws. That was the mistake of the Pharisee Jesus describes “praying” in the Temple. “See how good I am Lord; I deserve everything you can give me in return.” God is not in us because we are good; we are good to the extent that we open ourselves to let God work in and through us.

As the fourth Weekday Preface says so beautifully:

“You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness but makes us grow in grace, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Luke 11:5-13

Jesus continues his instructions to his disciples about prayer. Today the lesson is one of perseverance.

Jesus gives the parable of a man coming to a neighbour in the middle of the night looking for some food to provide hospitality to an unexpected visitor. The neighbour is not willing to get up and disturb his wife and children who are sleeping with him (which would be very common in a one-room house). But, says Jesus, if the man persists, the neighbour, simply to get some peace, will eventually get up and give the man all he needs. If a grumpy neighbour will listen to an inconvenient request, how much more will a loving God pay heed to the needs of his children?

In another example Jesus asks if a father would give his child a snake instead of a fish or a scorpion instead of an egg. If even a very ordinary father would not think of treating his children so callously, “if you, with all your sins, know how to give your children good things, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him”.

Of course, a very pertinent question comes to mind: if God is such a loving and caring parent who will only give “good” things to us, why do we have to persist in asking? Why do we have to ask at all? The reason is not because God needs persuading (like the sleepy neighbour). Persistence in prayer is for our benefit.

There are a number of ways of praying persistently. One is to keep begging God to give us something we want or that we think we need. Another is to think that somehow we can manipulate God or put him under some kind of obligation by asking him repeatedly. So, if I do a nine-day novena and say certain prayers each day, I may expect that God or some saint somehow is under an obligation to give me what I am asking for. (In some kinds of novenas or other devotional exercises there are people who tell us that “satisfaction is guaranteed”. This, in fact, is very close to superstition - if not heresy.)

The kind of prayer that Jesus is talking about is really something quite different. He seems to presume that what we are asking for is the gift of God’s Spirit - “how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?” Is that what we normally ask for? To ask for the Spirit is to ask to have the same Spirit that inspired Jesus in his life and work. It is a Spirit which is totally at one with the will of the Father. In the parallel text in Matthew, it is “good” things which the Father will give. What could be more of a “good” thing than the very Spirit of God?

The other types of asking can be a subtle way of asking God to do our will - “Lord, not Thy will but mine be done.” Whatever form our prayer takes, ultimately it must be this: to be like Jesus so that we may grow in the likeness of the Father. “To know him more clearly, love him more dearly, follow him more nearly.”

One of way moving in this direction is to make this the constant theme of our prayer. The more we pray for this the more likely it will become a reality in our lives. And it is inconceivable that God should refuse to hear this prayer.

Week 27 | Friday

Galatians 3:7-14

Paul continues today explaining the concept of justification by faith.

Tellingly he goes right back to Abraham, who was understood to be the physical and spiritual father of the Jewish race. Everyone whose life is based on faith in God’s word is a child of Abraham. [It is significant that Matthew, writing for Jews, traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke, writing for Gentiles, traces it back to Adam.]

Abraham was understood as the physical and spiritual father of the Jewish race (see, for example, John 8:31,33,39,53). They are also referred to as the “seed” or “descendants” of Abraham.

 But now, Paul says that all believers – both Jews and Gentiles – are his spiritual children. The offspring of Abraham are all those whose lives are based on faith rather than external observance of the Law. And so Jesus can say that Zacchaeus the sinful tax collector, after his change of heart following his meeting with Jesus, is truly a “son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9).

Paul sees this already foretold in the book of Genesis when God told Abram to leave his country and become a great nation. At that time God had said: “In you all nations will be blessed” (Gen 12:3).

Abraham is constantly presented as the archetype of the man of total faith in God. Several times, against all logic and reason, he trusted in God’s promises and was not disappointed. Now Paul says that all those who have a similar faith in God will receive the same blessings as Abraham. And it is faith and not observance of external laws which brings this about. 

On the contrary, Paul sees the keeping of the Law as a kind of curse. Some think that God can be won around, that they can “earn” salvation, by their scrupulous keeping of rules. But the book of Deuteronomy (quoted here by Paul) says that all are cursed who do not persevere in observing everything prescribed in the Law. Paul is clearly arguing that, as no one can possibly do that without failing in some degree, this curse cannot be avoided. The letter of James tells us that “whoever keeps the whole of the Law but fails in one has become accountable for all of it” (Jas 2:10). (As Catholics, we also taught that committing just one ‘mortal sin’ against just one commandment - e.g. deliberately missing Mass on Sunday - would earn eternal punishment.) 

Further, observance of the Law is not the means by which we are put right by God, because (and again Paul quotes from the Old Testament) “the righteous man lives by faith” (Habakkuk 2:4). In fact, the original text said by “faithfulness”. Paul is following the Greek Septuagint where the Hebrew ‘faithfulness’ is rendered by ‘faith’. Of course faithfulness is derived from faith. 

Paul’s argument here and, at greater length in Romans, can be summarised as follows:

The Law gives information – it does not give spiritual strength. No law, whether Mosaic or otherwise, not even the primordial command given to Adam, can prevent sin, in fact law makes it worse:

1, because, though law is not the source of sin, it becomes the instrument of sin by arousing concupiscence;

2, because by informing the mind it increases the fault, which becomes a conscious ‘transgression’;

3, because the only remedy the law can offer is punishment, curse, condemnation, death; hence it can be called the ‘law of sin and death’.” (Jerusalem Bible, commenting on Rom 7:7ff). 

Paul then, in his usual dramatic way, turns the tables. Those who had become cursed by their constant failure to keep the Law can be rescued and liberated by Christ who himself became an object of curse by dying for us on the tree of the cross. Paul clarifies this by quoting from Deuteronomy, “Cursed be everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Deut 21:23). 

In this way, the blessing of Abraham, promised to “all nations” in Genesis, is realised for all, Jew and Gentile alike. By bypassing the mere observance of the Law, we are all filled with the Spirit through faith, our unconditional throwing of ourselves into the loving arms of our God. What Paul tells the Galatians is true for us, too.

Of course, we Christians do not now follow the Jewish law – or do we? When asked what is specific to their religion, many Catholics will say “the 10 commandments”. And a “good” Catholic is one who keeps the Ten Commandments and the “commandments of the Church” (though they are often rather vague as to what these are). But Paul would strenuously deny that.

The Ten Commandments belong primarily to the Old Testament and to observe them, however faithfully, does not make one a Christian at all. We remember the rich man who was called to follow Jesus. He said he had kept the Commandments perfectly all his life. It was not enough. He had to reach out in love to those in need by sharing his wealth. This he could not do and went away (Mark 10:22). 

As Paul emphasises, the essence of our Christianity is our faith in the Way of Christ; it is the only source of life. Keeping the commandments is not the condition for our being saved. In fact, it is only when we are under the saving power of the Spirit of Jesus that we can begin to keep the Commandments. For the true Christian the Commandments are almost irrelevant. The Christian is measured by one law only and that is the law of love (agape, ’αγαπη). When one keeps that commandment – to love other as Jesus has loved us – all other obligations are taken care of. As the great St Augustine was supposed to have said, “Love and do what you like”. 

The power of love comes from faith in Jesus and the exercise of that love is the measure of our closeness to him. “As often as you do it to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do it to Me” (Matt 25:40). So, as Christians, we are to be measured not by how well we keep commandments and rules but by the strength of the love that binds us to God and our brothers and sisters.

Luke 11:15-26

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

In today’s passage Jesus frees a person from enslavement to an evil power which had rendered him mute, so that he could not speak. (In Matthew’s version of this story, the man is also blind.) As Christians, many of us can suffer from the same evil influence when we refuse or are afraid to acknowledge openly our Christian faith. We hide and we remain silent, especially when the values we hold are attacked or ridiculed. Once liberated, the man could speak and he did so, much to the amazement of the crowd. Let us, too, pray for this gift of speech, to be able to say the right thing at the right time.

But there were those present who accused Jesus of using the demon’s power to drive out the evil spirit. At the same time, in spite of the extraordinary signs that Jesus was initiating on almost a daily basis - including the one they had just witnessed which caused such astonishment among the people - his enemies asked him for a sign from God.

There is a clear gap between the leaders and the people here. While the leaders keep asking Jesus for his credentials, the people are shown as constantly praising and thanking God for all that is being done among them through Jesus.

Jesus then shows the self-contradictions in his opponents’ charges. A kingdom that is split by internal rivalries cannot survive. Why would evil spirits attack each other and so frustrate their goals? And, Jesus asks his accusers, when their own people drive out demons, by whose power do they do it? “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out devils, then the reign of God is among you.”

When people are liberated from the control of evil spirits, that is a sure sign that the loving power of God is at work. Any other interpretation does not make sense. And the ‘reign of God’ is personified and embodied in Jesus himself. It will also become present in his disciples who do his work.

And Jesus goes on to give another image. A strong man guarding his house and possessions remains undisturbed until someone stronger comes and overthrows him. That is clearly what is happening. Jesus is the stronger one and the evil spirits are being driven away by him. They are helpless before him. This liberation of people and society from evil powers is one of the most dramatic proofs that the all-powerful reign of God is present in the person of Jesus. What further signs could be asked for?

“The man who is not with me is against me, and the man who does not gather with me scatters.”

There can be no neutrality where Jesus is concerned. We have to make our choice - for him or against. Not to choose is itself a choice - against him. Compare this with the similar but actually quite different saying with one we saw earlier (9:50): “Anyone who is not against you is for you”.

This was in the context of the Apostle John complaining that he saw a man cast out demons in Jesus’ name. In so far as that nameless person was doing Jesus’ work and doing it in Jesus’ name, he was with Jesus. That surely has implications for the many good things that non-Catholics and others who are not Christians at all are doing.

And this saying about the non-acceptance of neutrality leads to another warning. It is not enough to have been liberated from the power of an evil spirit. Otherwise it may come back “to find the house swept and tidied” and bring even worse spirits with it. The end result is that the person’s situation is even worse than before. No, the emptiness left by the departure of the evil spirit has to be actively filled with the Spirit of Jesus.

Was Jesus referring to some of the people around him, especially his critics, who, by their meticulous observance of the Law, saw themselves as morally blameless but in whose lives the positive presence of the Spirit, as exemplified in Jesus himself, was totally absent?  This is something we need to reflect on with regard to our use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

It is easy to use the sacrament to get the forgiveness of our past sins and leave it at that. To have the feeling of now having a clean slate.  Nature may abhor a vacuum but the devil loves one! The true reconciliation that the sacrament calls for demands a new and stronger commitment to the living of our Christian life. The sacrament is intended to be an experience of conversion and change. It is much more concerned with the future than with the past.  The past is gone and there is nothing we can do about it. The present is in our hands and that is where we meet God.

Week 27 | Saturday

Galatians 3:22-29

Paul continues to compare the ineffectiveness of observing the Law with the effectiveness of faith in Christ.

“Sin is in control everywhere.” Everyone is touched by it and the Law does not help; if anything, it makes things worse by making us more aware of our shortcomings. One “Do not” after another creates feelings of such negativity and is so depressing. Wherever one turns, one is in danger of putting a foot wrong and can hardly avoid doing so.  

The only way to experience the promises made to his people by God is by faith, a total commitment, to Jesus Christ and his Gospel of truth, love and service. Only those who have such a faith can have this experience. Being made right with God is a free gift; it is not owed to us in any way and there is nothing we can do of ourselves to force God to give it to us. He is and never can be in debt to us.

Every “good” act we do is simply evidence of God himself working through us. And so we read of the prostitute woman who burst into the house of Simon the Pharisee and covered the feet of Jesus with her tears and her kisses: “Her sins, which were many, have been forgiven, hence she has shown great love” (Luke 7:47). Her sins are not removed because she loves; she loves because the gift of forgiveness has been given. 

(Clearly, allowances have to be made for the huge number of people who have no opportunity of hearing the Gospel proclamation. We leave that to God’s love and God’s providential care. Paul’s words, however, have a crucial relevance for us who have been given the message.) 

Paul sees the Law as a temporary expedient until the message about faith in Christ was made known. Before the way of faith, we had no real freedom under the Law; we were, as it were, the Law’s prisoners. It acted as a kind of guardian or “baby-sitter” imperfectly showing us the way to God. “Don’t do that… don’t go there…” Paul uses the word paidagogus (παιδαγωγοσ, from which our word ‘pedagogue’ comes). The paidagogus was the slave who looked after and monitored the young free-born schoolboy in Greek culture. He accompanied the boy at all times and had some disciplinary authority over him. 

It is not until we make the surrender of faith in Jesus as Lord before we can have full freedom. We do not need the guardianship or ‘pedagogy’ of the Law any more because, through our faith commitment, we have become children of God, full adults and heirs in God’s family, in a way that was never possible only under the Law. We are now free. The only law we are under is the liberating law of love.

Addressing all the Galatian Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, Paul tells them that, since they have all been baptised into Christ (the sacramental sign of their faith in him), they have “put on” Christ (symbolised by the white garment they put on after emerging from the baptismal water). Each one is now another Christ and all the previous distinctions that divided them have fallen away. Now, there is neither Jew nor Greek – no ethnic distinctions; neither slave nor free – no social distinctions; no male or female – no distinctions based on gender. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptised into one body – Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13).

This is surely one of the greatest contributions of Christianity to the world’s cultures but, alas, one that has not yet been fully realised even in many Christian communities (cf. The Secular City by Harvey Cox, who claims that it was this thinking that paved the way for our contemporary trans-national and multi-cultural societies).

“Merely by belonging to Christ”, says Paul, we become the true, spiritual descendants of Abraham, the father of all God’s people. We are among the numberless heirs, more numerous than the stars in the heavens or the sands on the seashore, that were promised to him. This happens by our saying one, unconditional ‘Yes’ to Christ and all he stands for and committing ourselves unconditionally to his vision of life.

The underlying message for the Galatians is that there is now no need of the Law and they should ignore those who are trying to tell them otherwise. Belonging to Christ in faith is all that is needed. Everything else will flow from that.

Let us then today renew our commitment of faith, our unconditional surrender to God through Jesus and his Gospel. Let our Christian life, too, be based on that faith and let us not fall back into a legalistic mentality (Is it a sin?). It is on this foundation of a total self-surrender to Christ’s Way that the Kingdom is built, that Kingdom that Jesus came to proclaim and establish. 

Luke 11:27-28

Is today’s short passage linked to yesterday’s, because it begins, “Now as Jesus was speaking…”?

After Jesus has effectively silenced his opponents and their ridiculous accusations, a woman cries out from the surrounding crowd: “Happy the womb that bore you and the breasts you sucked!” It was a beautiful tribute first to Jesus himself but also to his mother (someone, presumably, totally unknown to the speaker). In more contemporary terms we might rephrase it as, “May God bless the woman that produced such a fine son as you!” This woman is clearly one of the crowd that has been amazed at the work that Jesus is doing in contrast to the cynical unbelievers who want to destroy Jesus.

And, indeed, we on a very different level do recognise the extraordinary privilege that was Mary’s to be the Mother of God’s only Son. We pray to Mary, “Blessed are you among women.”

But Jesus turns the woman’s words around. “Still happier are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Greatness in God’s eyes lies not in gifts and privileges that have been granted but in the response that is given to God.

The true source of Mary’s greatness was not in her being chosen to be Jesus’ mother, nor even in her preservation from original sin but in that unconditional ‘Yes’ she gave to the angel at the Annunciation.  A ‘Yes’ she faithfully honoured to the day she stood in grief at the foot of the cross.  She heard the word and she kept it - to the very end.

Some of the people we saw Jesus arguing with yesterday were powerful and influential in their society; they were the ‘great’ ones of that society. But they neither heard nor saw nor kept the word of God, although they claimed to be experts in it.

And even Jesus himself was not great just because of his powers over demons or his ability to silence his accusers but because he, too, heard the word of his Father and kept it. There was a total identity between what his Father wanted and what Jesus was saying and doing.

For us, too, it must be exactly the same. That is the only greatness that matters, the only greatness that we need be concerned about.

Week 28 | Monday

Galatians 4:22-24,26-27,31-5:1

The passage begins with a verse not in our reading: “You who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?”  By this Paul is invoking the witness of the Scriptures.  To inherit the promise it is not enough to be just a descendant of Abraham, as Ishmael was.  It is necessary to be descended as the result of promise, like Isaac; it is necessary to be a spiritual descendant, not just a genealogical one.  Hence, for Paul Isaac’s birth prefigures the rebirth of Christians.     

Paul uses the examples of two of Abraham’s wives, Hagar and Sarah, to illustrate the difference between the Jews who were following the Law of Moses and Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, who follow the law of Christ.   

Hagar was a slave woman while Sarah was a free woman and the ‘real’ wife of Abraham.  In the beginning Sarah, Abraham’s wife was barren, so he took the slave girl, Hagar, who gave him a son, Ishmael.  It was only later, when she was already past child-bearing age that Sarah bore Isaac.  The difference between them, according to Paul, is that Ishmael was born “in the ordinary way”, that is, in the ordinary course of nature and without any special intervention on God’s part.   

Sarah, however, had been barren into her old age and the child she eventually bore was the result of a special promise that God had made to Abraham about his descendants.  That promise only applied to Isaac and his descendants.  (Hence, the significance of Abraham’s total trust in God when he was asked to sacrifice his only legitimate son Isaac and was ready to do so.)   

The point Paul is making is that it is not enough to be descended from Abraham, as Ishmael and many Jews could claim.  He sees in the two mothers symbols of the two covenants. “One was from Sinai, bearing children for slavery; and this is Hagar.” He refers to it as an “allegory”, not in the sense that it was not historical but that Paul is using the story to illustrate the theological truth he is sharing with the Galatians.   

The first covenant Paul identifies with that made on Mount Sinai between God and Moses.  But, says Paul, its children (the “present Jerusalem”) are now to be regarded as slaves, slaves of a Law that cannot save them. This is in contrast with the messianic Jerusalem, to which, as Isaiah foretold, “all nations will stream“ (2:2).  The Jerusalem which the prophets proclaimed - a Jerusalem not of laws, rituals and holocausts but a Jerusalem which created a society of truth and justice for all.   

The second covenant, however, does belong to this second Jerusalem, what Paul calls the  “Jerusalem above”.  The rabbis taught that the “Jerusalem above” would come down during the time of the Messiah.  It is, in Paul’s eyes, the place where Christ reigns as King and whose citizens are his followers, in contrast to the “present Jerusalem”.  It is this Jerusalem which is the “mother” of the Christians.   

“Shout for joy, you barren women who bore no children!”  Paul quotes from Isaiah’s joyful promise to Jerusalem, “barren” of children because her children are in exile. Paul applies Isaiah’s joyful promise to exiled Jerusalem to the ingathering of believers through the Gospel, by which “Jerusalem’s” children have become many.    

Paul tells the Galatian Christians - both Jews and Gentiles - that they are children not of the slave-girl (of the Law) but of the free-born wife (the Spirit of Jesus).  There is no need for them to continue following the old ways of the Law.  To do so is to renounce the freedom which came to them in Christ.   

The purpose of Christ’s liberating death was precisely to make us free.  To go back under the Law would be to return to a way that is equivalent to a form of slavery.  Human beings must choose either Christ or the Law as author of salvation.  The freedom spoken of here is freedom from the yoke of the law. The burden of the rigorous demands of the law as the means of gaining God’s favour makes an intolerable burden for sinful humanity.  As Peter said at the Council of Jerusalem when the acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian community was being debated: “Why are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we [Jews] have been able to bear?” (see Acts 15:10-11).    

It is important for us Christians to be aware that following Christ and the Gospel is meant to bring real freedom into our lives.  If we do not experience our being Christian as liberating then there is something lacking in our understanding of what the Gospel is about.  One gets the impression that many Catholics do not have any real sense of liberation, although their faith may give them a measure of security - at a price.  They have replaced the Law of Sinai for another set of legalities. (“If I do this, is it a sin?”)  It has to be said, too, that some pastors preach a gospel heavy with rules and regulations and threats of sin and damnation.   

Some see being a Christian as a matter of having to observe all kinds of restrictions which “other people” are not obliged to follow.  Young people have been heard to say things like, “Oh, I wish I had not been baptised!”     

For this reason, some remain riddled with guilt because they consistently feel they are not living up to the requirements of their “religion”.  Others rid themselves of this guilt by leaving the Church altogether.  “Now that I am not a Catholic, I am not bound by that nonsense any more…  I don’t have to go to church on Sunday, I can have sex with anyone I like whenever I like...”   

Others see virtue in “denying themselves” and “making sacrifices”, giving up the “freedom” that other people seem to have in order “to save their souls and go to heaven”.   

There is no question of doubting the sincerity of such people but it is sad that somehow they have not learnt or been taught that the true Christian is a truly liberated and free person.  To be free is not simply doing just what one feels like doing.  Such an attitude inevitably leads to self-destruction and certainly not to happiness and fulfilment.  To be free is to be effectively able to follow the good.  That good we believe is found in the vision of life that Jesus proposes and which he personally followed.  It is not a way just for Christians.  It is a way for people everywhere.  It is the vision of the Kingdom - a world of truth and goodness and justice and mutual respect for all without exception.   A world where God, people, the world and myself are living in a beneficially harmonious relationship.

Luke 11:29-32

Jesus had just said (last Saturday’s reading) that “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it”.

Now, with large crowds pressing around him, he throws out a warning which indicates that not many are hearing the word in the sense of accepting and following it. “This is an evil generation,” he says. Why? Because it keeps asking for a sign, by which Jesus can prove his credentials. Today he says the only sign they will be given is the sign of Jonah.

Jonah was a sign from God to the people of Nineveh, a pagan city which heard his message, repented and was reconciled to God. Jesus too comes on a mission from God (”as the Father has sent me”) and he will find a hearing - not from many of his own people, but from Gentiles.

So, Jesus says, the “queen of the south”, will stand in judgement on the present generation for she, a Gentile outsider, came from a long distance to listen to the wisdom of Solomon. But the Jesus who faces this generation is far greater than Solomon. The “queen of the south” is the queen of Sheba, whose visit to Solomon is recorded in 1 Kings 10:1-10.

Similarly, the people of Nineveh, the great pagan and wicked city, will stand in judgement over the present generation, because they repented at the message of Jonah. But Jesus is greater than Jonah and they refuse to listen to him.

There is always a danger that we take our faith for granted. Worse, we may even feel we are in a superior and safer position than others not of our faith or denomination. The fact that we carry the name ‘Catholic’ is not enough. Baptism and the reception of the other sacraments is not by itself a guarantee of our salvation. What counts is that we hear, understand, accept and assimilate the word of Jesus and carry it out at every moment of our lives.

Week 28 | Tuesday

Galatians 5:1-6; Luke 11:37-41

Paul continues to speak to the Galatians about freedom, a freedom they cannot find by submitting themselves again to the Mosaic Law.   

“When Christ freed us, he meant us to remain free.”  If only those words were emblazoned in huge letters in all of our churches!  One finds either that people feel Christianity is restrictive of a ‘normal’ human life or that it consists of living a restricted life for the sake of some future salvation.   

By taking on again the requirements of the Law to which they are being urged by certain Judaising “missionaries”, the Galatians are, in Paul’s view, going backwards.  They are giving up the freedom which came to them through the Gospel of Jesus.  This freedom is a freedom from a life based on a law of external observances, many of them clearly of human origin and not part of being a totally fulfilled person.  It was this kind of legalistic mentality which was creeping back into Church life that made the Reformers emphasise the importance of faith in Christ as the basis of life.   

“Do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.”  To make the Law the rule of one’s life is to undergo a kind of slavery.  By trying to live up to the rigorous demands of the Law, which few, if any, people could observe in its totality, the Galatians were taking on a heavy burden, a real yoke, which could only fill them with feelings of inadequacy and guilt.     

Jesus in the Gospel invites us to carry a very different yoke, a yoke which he will carry along with us (Matthew 11:28-30).  It is a yoke which is “easy” and whose “burden is light”.  It is a yoke of total surrender to his Way of truth, integrity and love.  Because of our many weaknesses, to follow such a way can at times mean the denial of our lower appetites but the bearing of this yoke can only be beneficial in the long run.  It brings us to where we really belong.  And it brings true peace.   

In particular, Paul tells the Galatians not to submit to the requirement of circumcision which, of itself, has nothing whatever to do with the following of Jesus.  Moreover, anyone who accepts to be ritually circumcised, in practice is bound to the observance of the whole Law.  The Law is a unit and one cannot pick and choose - it’s all or nothing.  Circumcision is a kind of sacrament and it expressed one’s total allegiance to the Law of the Old Testament.  (Of course, it also has a similar meaning for other faiths, e.g. Islam.)   

Again, those who look for fulfilment and salvation in the keeping of the Law have in effect separated themselves from Christ.  They have “fallen from grace”.  They have put themselves outside the scope of divine favour, because gaining God’s favour by external observance of the law and submitting in faith to love and service of Christ are mutually exclusive.   

Those who follow the Law believe, that, by keeping it perfectly, God “owes” them salvation.  Their model is the Pharisee in the Gospel who thanked God that through his meticulous observance of the Law he was not like others.  He saw all his imagined virtue as emanating from him personally.  God should be grateful to have people like him around.  However, his contemptuous remarks about the tax collector behind him revealed that, while his external behaviour was without fault, he was far from that inner love that the following of Christ expects.   

On the other hand, those who follow Jesus know that salvation comes as a “grace”, a freely-given gift which none of us can earn but which is given to those who surrender totally into the hands of the Lord. Ideally, that surrender takes place all during our lives as Christians but the extraordinary thing is that, even if it is not made until the 11th hour, that salvation is given.   

Of course, as we shall see in tomorrow’s reading, putting off the day of surrender is not a very smart thing to do but the point is that the door is never closed until we close our eyes in death.  God does not have an accountant’s ledger.  He only looks at me in the here and now.   

So it is through faith in Christ, that surrender in loving trust (itself a gift!), that we live in the firm hope of finding ourselves right with God.  It does not matter a whit whether one is circumcised or not.  The Christian community that Paul was addressing consisted of both circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles.   

All that matters, says Paul in a lovely expression, is that “faith that makes its power felt through love”.  Faith is much more than intellectual assent to certain truths or dogmas which we are told to accept as true.  It involves the total and unconditional surrender in trust to Jesus as Lord and as the Way to Truth and Life.   

When this faith is active and strong it results quite spontaneously in a life lived in love for God and in care and compassion for all those around us.  The only really free person is the one who, in all circumstances, is able to respond in love, compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation to all the people and situations of one‘s life.

Luke 11:37-41

Jesus continues to highlight what is central to our relationship with God. We skip over a short passage which is about various aspects of light. In short, the Christian is to be a person full of light through and through. Not like the kind of people Jesus now goes on to describe.

He had been invited to dinner by a Pharisee. Jesus apparently went straight into the dining area and reclined at the table prepared to eat. The Pharisee was quite shocked because Jesus had not first washed his hands before eating. Of course, we are strongly recommended to wash our hands before sitting down to eat. But here we are not dealing with a question of hygiene but of ritual washing. Jesus had omitted to perform a religious ritual which was laid down by the stricter Jews, although not actually part of the Law. [The rule probably had originally a hygienic purpose. By giving it a religious sanction one made sure that it was carried out. Many other obligations, some of them contained in the Mosaic Law e.g. in Leviticus, seem to be of the same kind.]

Most probably, Jesus, in the ordinary course of events, would have had no problem about performing this ritual but it is likely that here he is deliberately making a point. It allows him to draw attention to what he sees as false religion. A person’s virtue is not to be judged by his performance or non-performance of an external rite.

As Jesus tells this man in a graphic image, the Pharisees concentrate on making sure that the outside of the cup is clean while inside it is full of all kinds of depravity and corruption (like the judgmental thoughts in this man’s mind and the sinister plotting that the Pharisees in general were directing against Jesus). God is as much, if not much more, concerned about the inside as the outside.

Instead, Jesus suggests that they give alms to the poor and, when the inside is clean, there is no need to worry about the outside. Giving alms is a positive act of kindness to another person; it is an act of love and compassion. It neutralises the greed and rapacity of which he accuses them. It is not, like the washing of hands, a purely empty ritual which says little and is almost totally self-directed.

It is so easy to judge people, including our fellow-Catholics, by their observance or non-observance of certain Christian customs, which of themselves are of a non-moral nature. In the past, for instance, we might have criticised a woman for not wearing a hat in church or a priest for appearing without his Roman collar. Today, we might find ourselves scandalised because someone goes to communion having had a huge meal well within the designated one hour of fasting or even for eating meat on Friday, even though the ‘law’ does not require it. (Most of the passages in the Gospel attacking Pharisees are really directed against Pharisees in our Christian communities, not to mention the Pharisee in our own hearts.)

Elsewhere, Jesus has told us not to judge because it is very difficult for us to know what is going on within another person’s mind. (Like a former professor of mine, who as a young man, many years ago, was seen going into a shop to buy a packet of condoms. He actually wanted them to keep the rain off the spark plugs on his ancient motorbike!)

What Jesus is really emphasising here is the inner spirit and motivation. Once that is right, everything else will be taken care of.

Week 28 | Wednesday

Galatians 5:18-25; Luke 11:42-46

In our final reading from Galatians today we have a magnificent passage where Paul once again touches on the Spirit-given freedom which is the characteristic of the true Christian.   

He begins with a statement which we Catholics should have engraved on our hearts: “If you are led by the Spirit, no law can touch you.”  In the Letter to the Romans Paul had also said: “Those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom 8:14).  And, just a little earlier he had said to Galatians: “Live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5:16)   

By putting oneself under the Spirit one is not under the bondage of trying to please God by minute observance of the law for salvation or sanctification.   

The sign of the Spirit’s presence is love (agape, αγαπη). If we are genuinely filled with the Spirit of truth and love, then we really have no need of law.  As St Augustine said: “Love and do what you like.”  The truly loving person cannot commit sin, although such a person in certain circumstances may violate the letter of a particular law.  On the other hand, a person who meticulously carries out the smallest detail of a law may be a very unloving person, may be an intolerant bigot, a person full of hate.   

(In practice, of course, every institution or organisation needs some kinds of rules which help members to live according to the spirit of the group.  So St Ignatius of Loyola realised this when he wrote his detailed Constitutions for the Society of Jesus [Jesuits].  But the principle enunciated by Paul here must remain paramount.  The rules are to help advance the spirit and goals of the group; any rule or any application of a rule that frustrates that spirit or goal is to be set aside.)   

Paul illustrates the difference between a life which is purely self-directed (lived according to the “flesh”) and one lived in the Spirit by describing two kinds of people.   These are diametrically opposed to each other and mutually exclusive.   

One kind consists of those who act in a spirit of total self-indulgence, those who do what they like whenever they feel like it.  It is a description of the self-centred hedonistic, individualistic, person.    

He gives a partial list of 15 kinds of behaviour: “fornication, gross indecency and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery; feuds and wrangling, jealously, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things”.  These emerge from our lower instincts and are destructive both of others and oneself.  Such lists of vices and virtues were common in the ancient world and others can be found in the New Testament.  Clearly, such behaviour is clearly at odds with what one expects in a world where God’s way is paramount.   

On the other hand, those who live in the Spirit of the Father and Christ behave in a very different way.  The presence and power of the Spirit in such people results in the following characteristics: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-discipline.  All of these are, in fact, expressions of love.   

Christian character is produced by the Holy Spirit, not by the mere moral discipline of trying to live by law.  Paul makes it clear that justification by faith does not result in a law-less life.  The indwelling Holy Spirit produces Christian virtues in the believer’s life.  These are not just “virtues” which I can acquire by constant practice.  Much more they are the natural outcome of a life lived in close relationship with Jesus through his Spirit.  They are the natural outcome of allowing the Way of Jesus to guide one’s life.  It is not a question of self-discipline or self-control but rather of having a vision of where the good life really is and following that path.     

We might notice that Paul contrasts “works of the flesh” with the “fruit” (not “works”) of the Spirit.  It is the Spirit and not the following of laws which lead to such qualities in a person.  And, as Paul points out, there is no law covering such characteristics.   They are above and beyond any law and, when they are operative, the keeping of the law is more than adequately taken care of.   

The only way, then, to belong to Christ is by letting go of all “self-indulgent passions and desires” and let the Spirit of Jesus direct our lives.  “Christian character is produced by the Holy Spirit, not by the mere moral discipline of trying to live by law” (NIV).     

On the other hand, absence of law does not mean lawlessness or spiritual anarchy.  On the contrary, our deepening relationship with Jesus and our prayerful reflection on his teaching and our acceptance of that teaching, points us firmly in the direction of truth, love and freedom.   

The Letter to the Galatians, although it seems to be dealing with a very specific problem of a very specific group of people, in fact has a great deal of relevance for Christians of every age and every place.  The lesson about the freedom of the Christian is of the greatest importance.  It is very sad if we see our being Christian as a restricted form of being human, if we see it as a set of limitations set as a condition for ‘salvation’ in a future existence.  Marx called it the ‘opium’ of the proletariat, a means of numbing the lower classes to accepting an unjust existence as the price for a future happiness.     

On the contrary, it is the person who is a world unto himself, with no thought of the needs of others, who becomes the slave of his own passions and fantasies.  And when society is full of such people then we see the kind of behaviour that Paul deplores in today’s passage.  Strangely, it is the loving person, the one who lives for the genuine wellbeing of others who becomes the most enriched.  The best society is one where everyone gives and so everyone gets.

Luke 11:42-46

Jesus today continues to attack the attitudes of Pharisees. These remarks are not to be thought of as applying to all Pharisees, many of whom were good people. Paul himself was once a Pharisee as was Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, and Gamaliel, who, in the Acts (5:34ff), urged caution in persecuting the disciples of Jesus. Jesus is to be seen rather attacking a certain mentality which can all too easily be among us Christians and, if we are honest, sometimes in ourselves.

Here Jesus attacks them for their scrupulous observance of even the tiniest of regulations, not because that is wrong but because they by-pass the love of God which is what really matters. He attacks them for their status-seeking. They expect people to look up to them and give them special honours because of their supposed higher level of religious observance. They expect to be given front seats in the synagogue and for people to greet them obsequiously in the streets.

Usually graves were whitewashed so that people would not walk over them by mistake. The Pharisees are like unmarked graves which people unwittingly come in contact with and thus become tainted with ritual uncleanness. In other words, people coming in contact with them are not aware that under the veneer of piety inside they are really containers of rottenness and corruption. (Elsewhere, Jesus describes them as whitewashed graves where the outer cleanliness conceals inner corruption.)

In the past (and perhaps in some places it is still the case), the clergy have often expected similar honours to be paid to them. Very often, people willingly did so because they genuinely respected their bishop or their priest. But there were cases where the honours were not deserved but were demanded and expected. But, as used to be said, the habit does not make the monk nor the Roman collar the priest nor the mitre the bishop.

At this point, one of the scribes or experts in the law objected because in speaking like that about the Pharisees, Jesus was attacking them too. (Some of the scribes were also Pharisees.) But they are equally deserving of criticism. Because by their narrow-minded and nit-picking interpretations of the law they make it difficult for ordinary people to keep the law, while they themselves do nothing to help. Moreover, they add rules and regulations to the Mosaic Law, do nothing to help people keep them and find ways for themselves to get around them.

The Church itself over the centuries has not been above criticism in this area either. And perhaps it is still true today. Bishops and priests have often laid heavy burdens on the faithful and not given much help in carrying them. Sometimes church leaders have been more anxious to preserve traditional practices than lead people to a deeper love of Christ and each other.

But the clergy have no monopoly on this. Parents too can be guilty when they follow double standards, making one rule for themselves and another for their children. Similarly teachers with students or employers with employees… “Do as I say; don’t do as I do”, as teacher Miss Jean Brodie tells her students in Muriel Sparks’ novel.

Pharisaism is alive and well in our society but the first person I need to check is me.

Week 28 | Thursday

Ephesians 1:1-10; Luke 11:47-54

We begin today reading from the Letter to the Ephesians and we will continue with it until middle of Week 30.  In our bibles this letter follows immediately on Galatians but belongs to a later period in Paul’s missionary life.     

(It is useful to be aware that the Pauline letters, from Romans to Philemon, are arranged, not according to the date on which they were written, but according to their length.  Early editors would not have been too clear on the chronological order of the letters.  They did not have the editorial tools which are available to us now.)   

Because of the general nature of its contents, the Letter to the Ephesians is often thought to be a kind of “encyclical” sent to several churches in the region.  Many of the best manuscripts do not have the name “Ephesus” in the opening verse.  Also, because of noticeable differences in style and language compared to letters regarded as definitely from Paul, doubts have been raised about the Pauline authorship of this letter. It is possible that it was written by a disciple familiar with Paul’s teaching and issued even after the apostle’s death.   

The letter is thought to date from late in the first century AD and seems to be addressed to a predominantly Gentile church which already has lost most of its links with Jewish traditions.   

Overall it is a letter extremely rich in its ideas and that is why we will stay with it over the next nine weekdays.   

In commenting on the readings, for convenience we will attribute the contents to Paul, because, although he may not have penned the letter himself, it undoubtedly reflects his teachings.   

In the opening sentence, the greeting is from Paul, who calls himself an apostle of Christ Jesus appointed by Christ.  An ‘apostle’ (apostolos, ‘αποστολοσ, from the verb apo-stello, ‘απο-στελλω) is someone who has been entrusted with handing on an official message.  This responsibility has come direct from God and, later in the course of the letter, Paul will emphasise the role of God’s planning in the unfolding course of events.   

The letter is addressed to the “saints” (hagioi, ‘αγιοι), who are defined as those who are “faithful to Christ Jesus”.  In fact, the word “saints” was used at this time for all the baptised members of the community.  The word actually refers to people who are set apart from others.   

There follows the usual greeting in words that we now use in our Eucharistic liturgy: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”  Familiarity with such phrases can prevent us from fully savouring the content of the greeting which asks for “grace” and “peace”.     

These are both key words in this letter: “grace” is used no less than 12 times and “peace” occurs seven times.  “Grace” (charis, χαρισ) is the unmerited love of God as experienced in our lives and “peace” (eirene, ’ειρηυη) is that deep harmony between God, other people, our environment and ourselves.  We could hardly wish people richer gifts than these.   

The words “Blessed be God the Father...” now introduce a beautiful prayer of blessing which goes to the end of today’s reading and continues up to the end of tomorrow’s reading as well.  In the Greek, it forms a single sentence.  (Writers of classical Greek and Latin liked long sentences but in our writing style they need to be broken up.)  The prayer is what we call a “doxology” because it recites what God has done and is a paean of worship and praise.  The term comes from the Greek word doxa (δοξα) which means ‘glory’.   

Paul speaks first of the blessings we have through the Father (v.3), then of those that come through the Son (vv.4-13a) and finally of those coming through the Holy Spirit (vv.13b-14). [Today’s reading ends at v.10 and the rest will be read tomorrow.]     

Today’s passage begins with praise for the Father, who is the source of all the spiritual or “heavenly” blessings we have received through Jesus Christ.  The term “heavenly realm” occurs five times in this letter and emphasises that Christ is now in glory and points to our future sharing in his life.  Paul calls them “spiritual blessings in the heavens”.  In other words, these blessings are not just recent.  God had chosen us from the very beginning, long before our world came into existence. And the complete fulfilment of these blessings will only be experienced after our time on this earth.  In the meantime we continue to experience them in this life, hopefully in ever-growing degrees.   

These blessings come from the Father “in Christ”, a phrase which is used 12 times in this prayer alone and expresses our close union with him as members of his Body.   

We were chosen (why us? why me?). A number of reasons are now given.     

First, to live “in Christ” and to be “holy and spotless”.  Holiness is the result - not the basis - of God’s choosing.  It refers both to the holiness imparted to the believer because of Christ and to the believer’s personal sanctification (see 1 Cor 1:2). It is both our vocation and God’s gift to us.  Holiness is not our doing.  And let us never say, “I don’t have a vocation”.  Every baptised person has been called from all eternity, truly a sobering thought.  The question each one of us needs to answer is: to what role in the community am I being particularly called?  (We will see something of that later in the Letter.)   

Secondly, we were called - in a lovely phrase - “to live through love in Christ’s presence”.  That phrase makes a perfect summary of a Christian life; everything is there and the rest is icing on the cake. ‘Love’ here is primarily the love God has for us (agape, ’αγαπη), and that leads him to ‘choose’ us and to call us to be ‘holy’ but, at the same time, does not exclude our reaching out in love for God which results from and is a response to his own love for us.    

Thirdly, we were called to become adopted children of God.  In a sense every person is a child of God by virtue of creation but, through our baptism and our special relationship through Jesus, we become “adopted” children of God not just by virtue of creation but, through a mysterious calling, to be in a special way brothers and sisters of Jesus and partners in his work to establish the Kingdom. Jesus Christ, the only Son, is both the source and the model of the way God has chosen for us to become holy, i.e. by adopting us as his heirs.   

Fourthly, we are called to make known the “glory of God’s grace”.  God’s grace is the gift of being called to share God’s life through Jesus Christ.    These are the two themes that run through this account of God’s blessings: their source is God’s liberality, and their purpose is to make his glory appreciated by his creatures.  Everything comes from him, and everything should lead to him.    

This we are to proclaim “from the housetops” so that others too may open themselves to this gift.  This is what Jesus meant in another context when he spoke of our being the “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” so that people may come to be drawn to the love and service of the Lord (cf. Matt 5:13-16).   

Fifthly and lastly, by our being called we have, through the “blood of Christ”, that is, by his suffering and death on the cross which has, so to speak, bought back our freedom.  “The Ephesians were familiar with the Graeco-Roman practice of redemption: slaves were freed by the payment of a ransom.  Similarly, the ransom necessary to free sinners from the bondage of sin and the resulting curse imposed by the law (see Gal 3:13)” (NIV).     

This freedom comes through the forgiveness of our sins, which in effect means a total reconciliation with God through what Jesus has done for us.  As we mentioned earlier when reading Galatians, the experience of freedom is an important element in our Christian life.   

Summing up, Paul refers to all this as the “richness of grace”, the abundance of freely-given love which has been “showered” on us in God’s unique wisdom and insight.  The word ‘grace’ (charis) as it is used here emphasises not so much the interior gift that makes a human being holy, as the gratuitousness of God’s favour and the way he manifests his glory. These are the two themes that run through this account of God’s blessings: their source is God’s liberality, and their purpose is to make his glory appreciated by creatures.  Everything comes from him, and everything should lead back to him.    

All this happens because of God’s “wisdom and insight”.  That wisdom is, in an extraordinary way, being shared with us. God “has let us know the mystery of his purpose”.  “He has made known to us the mystery of his will.”   

The word “mystery” is used here in a sense somewhat different from our contemporary usage, which usually refers to something we cannot understand.  In Paul’s day, the word mysterion (μνστεριου) was used in the context of certain cults whose inner workings were only revealed to the initiated (something like the “secrets” of Freemasons in our day).     

But Paul uses the word here and in other letters to refer to truths which were formerly hidden or obscure but now have been revealed by God for all to know and understand.  For instance, it is used by Paul of the Incarnation, the death of Christ and its meaning in God’s plan, God’s intention to bring peoples everywhere, both Jews and Gentiles, as his people   

The mystery or ‘hidden plan’ which he mentions here is God’s plan to “bring everything together under Christ, as head, everything in the heavens and on earth”.  Paul uses a significant term here that not only has the idea of leadership but also was often used of adding up a column of figures.  A contemporary way of putting it might be to say that in a world of confusion, where things do not “add up” or make sense, we look forward to the time when everything will be brought into meaningful relationship under the headship of Christ.    

The main theme of this letter is how the whole body of creation, having been cut off from the Creator by sin, is decomposing, and how its rebirth is effected by Christ reuniting all its parts into an organism with himself as the head, so as to reattach it to God.  The human (both Jew and Gentile) and the angelic worlds are brought together again through the fact that they were saved by a single act.   

Of course, this is all a mystery in the contemporary sense too, something we will never fully grasp on this side of the grave but Paul is emphasising the uncovering of an exciting aspect of God in his relationship with his creatures of which even God’s people up to this had hardly an inkling.   

The rest of this magnificent blessing-prayer will be concluded in tomorrow’s reading.

Luke 11:47-54

More strong words from Jesus against the Pharisaic mentality. Today the charge is of hypocrisy.

They now build monuments to remember the prophets of old but those same prophets were killed by the ancestors of those who later built them. On the one side they are building the monuments as an act of atonement while they themselves have exactly the same attitudes as their ancestors. They do not listen to their own teaching.

Jesus utters words which he identifies as “the wisdom of God”: “I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of these they will persecute and kill.” It is not a quotation from the Old Testament or any other book known to us. It could refer to God speaking through Jesus (the Word, the Wisdom of God) or presenting in quotation form God’s decision to send prophets and apostles, even though they would be rejected.

Jesus is basically saying that the mission of the Church (apostles) is linked with the mission of the Old Testament prophets, who, like Jesus’ disciples, suffered and, in some cases, died at the hands of their contemporaries. Jesus, of course, himself will be one of them, the last and greatest Prophet.

Jesus says the scholars of the Law carry with them guilt for the killing of every good person and every prophet since the murder of Abel down to that of Zechariah. The murder of Abel by his brother Cain is recorded in Genesis 4:8, the opening book of the Old Testament, and that of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, a book regarded as the closing of the Hebrew Testament by the Jews. It is like our describing the whole Bible in terms of “from Genesis to Revelation”. Jesus was referring to the history of martyrdom right through the whole of the Old Testament.

There is one final attack against the Scribes and their way of thinking and acting. They interpret the Law in such a way that they make it inaccessible to the ordinary person. And, what is worse, they do not observe it themselves. “You yourselves have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wish to enter!” They kept both themselves and the people in ignorance of the true way to salvation and wholeness. As it is put in Matthew’s gospel: “They shut the kingdom of heaven [God] in people’s faces” (Matt 23:13).

One wonders how many of our Church leaders, teachers and theological and moral ‘experts’ have not done exactly the same thing over the years and down to the present day? How many Catholic parents and teachers have made the Christian message basically inaccessible to the young and then we wonder why they have “no interest in religion”?

Not surprisingly, all these attacks only increased the hostility of the Pharisees and the religious leaders against Jesus. They got him to speak on a multitude of religious questions hoping that he would convict himself out of his own mouth. As far as they were concerned, they were more than successful. What they did not realise was that Jesus was operating from a completely different vision of what life is really about. His new wine could not fit into their old wineskins.

The question for each one to ask is: Do I share the vision of Jesus? What does ‘Christianity’ mean to me?

Week 28 | Friday

Ephesians 1:11-14; Luke 12:1-7

Today we continue our reading of God’s plan of salvation at the beginning of the Letter.  As Paul continues his panoramic vision of God’s plan for the whole human race and the whole of creation, he speaks today first of the Jews, his own people, and then of the Gentiles or “pagans” (that is, non-Jews) who had responded to God’s call.   

“It is in Christ we were claimed as God’s own, chosen from the beginning.”  In using the word “we” Paul indicates his fellow-Jews.  He tells them that Christ is at the centre of God’s plan.  Whether we speak of the whole of creation or the individual, it is only in relationship to Christ that there is a meaningful future destiny.  Christ is the paradigm for all creation, the visible re-presentation of God himself among us.  He is the Alpha and the Omega.  However, Paul goes on now to speak, not of the whole of creation, but of those who have responded to God’s call in Jesus.   

“We were claimed as God’s own” - that is, the Jewish people, who were called in a special way to be his witnesses to the coming of the Messiah.  The completion of their call would only take place in Jesus, who, of course, was also a Jew, a descendant of David and a son of Abraham (cf. Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies).   

The Jews “put their hopes in Christ before he came”.  That is to say, it was among the Jews that God would become incarnate and it was they who gave witness over the centuries to the hope of a saviour Messiah.  A number of Jews would recognise that hoped-for Messiah in the person of Jesus but many others would not.  These latter still live in the hope of a Messiah yet to come.   

“Now, you too, in him [i.e. Christ] have heard the message of the truth and the good news of your salvation and have believed it.”  Paul now turns to the Gentiles - very likely the majority of his readers - who have heard the message of the Gospel, have accepted it and become followers of Jesus.   

They, like their Jewish brothers and sisters, have been “stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit”.   Paul completes his trinitarian account of God’s plan with the Spirit, since the giving of the Spirit shows the plan has reached its final stage.  The Gentiles, too, are called to share exactly the same salvation as the Jews. The proof of this is the clear evidence that the Spirit has come upon them and made them his own.  They, too, share in that special kind of freedom that Christ gives to those who are truly his own and which puts an end to the moral slavery they experienced during their pre-Christian life.   

Nevertheless, though this gift has already begun, it is only given in a hidden way while the unspiritual world lasts, and will only be given fully when the kingdom of God is complete and Christ comes in glory.    

There is a great wealth of ideas in this magnificent presentation of what God has planned for his people through the saving work begun by his incarnate Son and carried out by the Spirit.  These words are addressed as much to us as they were to the original readers of this letter.  They can provide an endless source for prayer, reflection, praise and thanksgiving when we realise the kind of God we believe in.   

Let us, too, ask him to help us live up to the calling which has come from him, a calling going back to long before we were even thought of.

Luke 12:1-7

After his confrontation with the Pharisees and Scribes, Jesus now turns to the crowds. We are told that they were gathering round him in their thousands, so densely that they were trampling on each other. Clearly they were hungry to hear a man who had spoken in such an extraordinary and daring ways to their religious leaders.

But Jesus begins by speaking first to his own disciples. “Be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” The fermenting characteristic of yeast is seen by the Jews as a corrupting agent. That was why they only use unleavened bread at the Passover.

The corrupting agent in the Pharisees was their hypocrisy. On the outside they pretended to be what they were not on the inside. “There is nothing…hidden that will not be made known.” It can mean that the hypocrisy of the pharisaical will ultimately be laid bare. In contrast to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees the followers of Jesus must practice transparency. And, although much of the teaching that the disciples receive is in private, ultimately all will have to come out into the open.

The Church is not a secret society, although it has its “mysteries”, its special teachings and rituals, which are only fully understood by those who are “inside”. The Church is of its very essence evangelical. Its purpose is to share the vision of Christ with the whole world. This is crucial to the setting up of the kingdom, the accepted reign of God in the world.

“What you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed from the rooftops.” This, of course, will involve dangers. The Gospel will be resisted, it will be seen as a dangerous threat to other views of life. Christians will die and, in fact, thousands have sacrificed their lives simply because they were followers of Jesus.

But death is not the worst enemy. It is a fact of living. It is an end we will all have to face one day, sooner or later, one way or the other. The one we are really to fear is the one “who has the power to cast into Gehenna after he has killed”. Only God as the Supreme Judge has this power. Of course, the only person God “casts” into “hell” is one who has chosen to separate him- or herself definitively from God.

‘Gehenna’ (in Hebrew) ge-hinnom, ‘Valley of Hinnom’ or ge-ben-hinnom, ‘Valley of the Son of Hinnom’, was situated on the south-west of Jerusalem. In the time of the kings it had been the centre of a cult in which children were sacrificed (cf. 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31) and hence seen as a place of abomination. The Hebrew is transliterated into Greek as gaienna, which appears in the New Testament as geenna (geenna). The punishment of sinners by fire after death first appeared in Jewish apocalyptic literature but the name geenna for this punishment first appears in the New Testament. The term is only used in Matthew, Mark, the Letter of James and here. The word is not to be confused with Hades, which was a general name for the place of the dead.

The one we are really to fear is the one who can make us deny Christ and all that Christ means and to die in a state of denial. But, whatever threats hang over us, we are not to fear. We have the example of many before us who have gone to their deaths in peace and without hesitation. They knew they had no other choice: either death or Truth.

Even little birds sold in the market place for a few cents do not die unknown to God, says Jesus. The very hairs of our head are counted. So our duty is clear: to proclaim the good news of the Gospel with openness and integrity and not to fear the consequences. Because we are not alone.

Week 28 | Saturday

Readings: Ephesians 1:15-23; Luke 12:8-12

Immediately following his great picture of God’s plan for all of his creation, Paul now makes a beautiful prayer for the Christians to whom he is writing.  Let us see, phrase by phrase, what he says.   

He begins by saying, “I, too, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus…”  The letter is purportedly being written from Paul’s place of imprisonment in Rome.  Clearly he has been getting reports from the various churches by Christians who have been visiting him.  He has been deeply gratified by what he has been hearing about the faith of the Christians and the loving support they show towards each other and he remembers them constantly, with gratitude, in his prayers.   

In two lovely petitions he prays that God and Jesus may give them an ever deeper understanding of their faith:   

May the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Father of glory,
give you a spirit of wisdom and perception of what is revealed, 
to bring you to full knowledge of him.

Each one of us could reword that prayer and ask that God give each one of us, too, the spirit of wisdom and insight which will lead us to an ever deeper understanding of Jesus and his Gospel.  Without that we cannot grow in loving and serving him.  

He continues:     

May he enlighten the eyes of your heart,  
so that you can see what hope his call holds for you, 
what rich glories he has promised the saints will inherit  
and how infinitely great is the power that he has exercised for us believers.   

“The eyes of your heart” - the heart is used in the Scripture as the seat of knowledge and also of love.  We need to be strengthened in both knowledge, understanding and love.“The hope his call holds for you” - hope here expresses a confidence in a future that is not yet here but is guaranteed.  It is a form of faith.“The saints” - indicates all the baptised and not just a special minority.   

Seeing as a sense of understanding is a concept that goes right through the Gospel.  Many blind people are healed and, when they can see, they praise and follow Jesus.  Jesus is the Light of the world, a light that can only be enjoyed and benefited by those who can see.  We, too, are called in imitation of Jesus to be, in our own way, a light to the world (cf. Matt 5:14).   

Here we are asked to pray that we may see just what God’s call in Christ means for us.  We ask to understand the nature of Christian hope, which is not just some wishful but a certainty that promises will be kept.  It is the promise of a future glory that is waiting for us and to have a deeper understanding of the power that God exercises on our behalf.   

And to know “the surpassing greatness of his power”.  Paul piles term upon term to emphasise that the extraordinary divine force by which Jesus Christ was raised is the same power at work in and through believers.  Paul is saying that the Christians already have some notion of all this from the power of God that was made evident in the life of Jesus.  Jesus was raised from the dead and put sitting at the Father’s right hand, in effect, a position of sharing in the nature, power and authority of God.  This places him above all the hierarchies of ministering angels around God’s throne and all other powerful spirits now and forever.   

Summing up, Paul says that God has put “all things under [Christ’s] feet”; he is Lord of all creation. As such, he has also been made the “head of the Church, which is his Body”.  The psalmist had already expressed it:   

What is man that you should be mindful of him,
Or the son of man that you should care for him?
You have made him little less than the angels
And crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps 8:5-6)   

The psalm emphasises the destiny of man in general. The Letter to the Hebrews, using the same text, adds the words “subjecting all things under his feet” and applies them to Jesus as the Son of Man and Ruler of all (Heb 2:6-9).   

The Church, then, as the Body of the Risen Christ is the visible manifestation of his ongoing presence in the world just as my body is the means by which I am made sensibly present to those around me.  And that Body, together with its Head, is the “fullness of him who fills the whole creation”.     

“The Church, as the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12ff), can be called the fullness (pleroma, πληρωμα) in so far as it includes the whole new creation that shares (since it forms the setting of the human race) in the cosmic rebirth under Christ its ruler and head.“ (Jerusalem Bible).  In other words, the Church shares in the fullness of Christ by his being its Head, while, of course, in many other respects it reveals the shortcomings of its other members.   

So we have here an awesome vision of the overwhelming greatness of Jesus now in glory with the Father while, at the same time, intimately part of our Christian communities.  It is a frightening responsibility that we are the visible re-present-ation of Christ to the world and it is a responsibility of which we need to be constantly aware.  The rest of this Letter will spell out what that union between Christ and his Church entails.

Luke 12:8-12

Jesus continues to prepare his disciples for trials to come in the future.

He encourages them to be faithful to their Christian commitment and to their faith in Christ as Lord. When we publicly acknowledge Jesus as Christ and Lord, Jesus too will acknowledge us as his faithful disciple. Of course, it will be difficult during times of abuse and persecution but they must always be ready to acknowledge their allegiance to Jesus. To deny that allegiance may win them a reprieve in this life but not in the next. “He who saves his life will lose it,” as Jesus said on an earlier occasion. The word for ‘deny’ here is the same word used in Peter’s denial and disowning of his Master (Luke 22:34 and 61).

There comes now a saying which can cause difficulty to some. “Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.” Why should there be just one exception to the forgiveness of sin? And why is speaking against the Son acceptable but not against the Spirit?

To speak against the Son is clearly wrong but, with repentance, there can be reconciliation. But to sin against the Spirit is to go against Truth itself. This was basically the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees. They not only criticised Jesus; that could be understood. But they locked themselves into a situation where they shut out any openness to the truth, the Truth that others could so easily see present in Jesus. As long as they were in that situation, there was no possibility of reconciliation. Forgiveness in the Gospel is not just a unilateral move on one person’s part. It always involves a coming together of two opposing parties in reconciliation. To sin against the Spirit is to close the door on reconciliation.

It seems that in Luke’s context he may be applying the saying to those Christians who are under attack for their faith. If they deny the Spirit of Truth they too lock themselves out from being reached by God. In times to come, Jesus’ disciples will be dragged before civic and religious authorities. They are not to be afraid or worried about how to defend themselves or about what they should say.

People who have been in this position have attested that the words do indeed come and with them a certain peace and strength, provided one retains one’s integrity and wholeness. And it is the presence of that Spirit, the Spirit of God and of Jesus, that is at work.

Most of us will not have to suffer severely for our faith. But there will likely be times when we may find our religious beliefs and practices ridiculed and made fun of. We can be tempted at such times to go into hiding, to conceal our Christian identity. We may even fail to come to the support of people who are under attack, refuse to stand by them, refuse to stand up and be counted as committed followers of the Gospel.

If that has happened in the past, let us ask forgiveness. Let us pray that in future we may have the courage and integrity in word and deed to let people know who we are and what we stand for.

Week 29 | Monday

Ephesians 2:1-10; Luke 12:13-21

We now enter the second chapter of the Letter in which Paul speaks of how the Gentiles together with the Jews have been called to share together the gift of God’s love, showered on them with total generosity and not because of any merit on their part. 

Paul here speaks about what God has done through Christ for both Jews (of which he himself is a representative) and Gentiles (who form the majority of his readers). 

He begins by addressing the Gentiles (“you”) who in the past lived lives both morally and spiritually far from God. “You were dead in your transgressions”, a description of their past moral and spiritual condition, separated from the life of God. They were under the influence of the “ruler who governs the air”. The air was believed to be the dwelling place of Satan and all the demons and implies they belonged to a higher world than this earth. 

But “we”, Paul and all his fellow-Jews, were not without fault either. They too lived “sensual” lives, ruled only by their own physical desires and their own ways of thinking. The Jews were as worthy of God’s punishment as the rest of the world. (One has only to read the prophets to see how severely they condemned the behaviour of their own people.) 

However, “we” (now indicating all, both Jews and Gentiles), though dead through our sin, have experienced God’s mercy and compassion and are overwhelmed by the outpouring of God’s love. “When we were dead through our sins, he brought us to life in Christ...and gave us a place with him in heaven.” Paul expresses this truth more fully in his Letter to the Romans (6:1-10). 

Notice the past tense “gave”. Already in Christ we are enjoying the life that will never end and for which the death of the body is a mere transition. Treating the eschatological reality as already existing is a characteristic of Paul’s letters written from prison. This way of thinking is also to be found is also to be found in John’s gospel. 

In the final paragraph Paul emphasises how what God has done for us in Christ Jesus is a sign of the immense and forgiving love of God which is given to people everywhere as purely free gift, in no way earned by what we do. “By grace you have been saved through faith… This is the gift of God.” The saving is the gift of God; the faith is the trusting surrender of openness to that love. Our standing with God “is not from works, so no one can boast”.  

Access to this love comes through faith, the unconditional surrender in trust of our whole selves to our loving God. It is not by any meritorious acts of our own, as those believe who base salvation on the meticulous observance of a law or a moral code. As if such observance bound God to hand out rewards for good behaviour. 

On the contrary, we “are God’s work of art”. Everything that we have become, every good and beautiful thing we do is simply God at work in us and through us. We are “created in Christ Jesus to live the good life as from the beginning he had meant us to live it”. But our doing so depends entirely on our openness to his guidance and help. 

Let us then today say our unconditional ‘Yes’ to Jesus in faith. Only in this way can the deepest longings of our hearts be realised.

Luke 12:13-21

We move on now in Luke to more immediate concerns of the Christian life. Today’s topic is about the perennial question of money, or rather, the love of money.

A man in the crowd asked Jesus to tell his brother to give him a share of the inheritance due to them both. According to Mosaic Law the general rule was that an elder son received double that of a younger son. If there was a dispute, it was usually settled by a rabbi, which is presumably why the man approached Jesus. It was the kind of problem in which Jesus was not remotely interested and he refused to get involved. One wonders how interested Jesus is when we make novenas to win lotteries or when we ask God to help us get our hands on the wealth of a rich and elderly aunt!!

Jesus now takes the opportunity to make some general remarks about material greed “in all its forms”. A man may be wealthy, he says, but his possessions do not guarantee him life. Life comes with freedom, peace and happiness. Money cannot buy these things.

There is no evidence that rich people enjoy more freedom, peace or happiness although many of us are inclined to think they do and we envy them. Their marriages do not last any longer. They do not bring up better children. They do not necessarily enjoy better health.

At this point Jesus speaks a telling parable. A farmer who is already rich has a bumper harvest. It is so big that he has to pull down his existing barns to build larger ones. When all that is done, he smugly says to himself: “My boy, you have blessings in reserve for years to come. Relax! Put your feet up. Eat heartily, drink well. Enjoy yourself.” But that very night, Jesus says, God will terminate his earthly life.

What happens now to all his piled-up wealth? Yes, it all has to be left behind. “You can’t take it with you.” “How much did he leave?” was asked about a billionaire who died. “Every red cent,” was the reply. When the farmer met his God, what had he brought with him? Little or nothing. When Mother Teresa died, how much do you think she brought? One feels she brought a great deal. And she certainly left behind a great deal to enrich the lives of many.

What is my attitude to money and wealth? If I were to die now what could I bring with me to present to God? And what will I leave behind, apart from cash and possessions? All of us can be rich in God’s sight and it does not require any money. Someone has said that the really rich are not those who have the most but those whose needs are the least. [If you have a New Testament handy, read the following passage, 12:22-34, where Jesus spells out a recipe for a life free from anxiety, the life which he himself lived.]

And what we need most is the ability to reach out in love, the love that builds and makes life better for others. Think of what good parents leave behind in children whose lives are dedicated to making this world a better place. Or teachers who have helped young people to devote themselves to service of the community.

What we need is to live in communities where people look after each other. A situation where because everyone gives, everyone gets.

Week 29 | Tuesday

Ephesians 2:12-22; Luke 12:35-38

A lovely passage today in which Paul shows how Christ brought together the two groups - Jews and Gentiles - and made them one people, reconciling them with God and with each other. After speaking of the salvation that has come as a total gift to both Jews and Gentiles, Paul now moves on to the mutual relationship that now exists between the two groups. Former enemies have become brothers and sisters in Christ and now form one seamless community. He is speaking here especially to the Gentile Christians. 

Today’s passage is summarised by the New American Bible: 

The Gentiles lacked Israel’s messianic expectations, lacked the various covenants God made with Israel, lacked hope of salvation and knowledge of the true God (11-12); but through Christ all these religious barriers between Jews and Gentiles have been transcended (13-14) by the abolition of the Mosaic covenant-law (15) for the sake of uniting Jew and Gentile into a single religious community (15-16), imbued with the same holy Spirit and worshipping the same Father (18). The Gentiles are now included in God’s household (19) as it arises upon the foundation of the apostles assisted by those endowed with the prophetic gift (3:5), the preachers of Christ (20; cf. 1 Cor 12:28). With Christ as the capstone (20; Is 28:16; Matt 21:42), they are being built into the holy temple of God’s people where the divine presence dwells (21-22).

In the verse preceding the beginning of our reading today, Paul reminds the Gentile Christians that they were formerly rejected by the Jews as unholy outsiders. He implies that in some respects it was a false division. Gentiles “in the flesh” were called the “uncircumcised” (a term of rejection) by those who called themselves the “circumcised”, which ironically represents something “done in the flesh by human hands”. In other words, one group of people was rejected by another on the basis of a physical operation on the body. 

More seriously, however, the Gentiles before their incorporation in the Christian community were without Christ and “alienated from the community of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise”. These covenants include those made by God with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and others. In a dramatic phrase, Paul says the Gentiles were “immersed in this world, without hope and without God”. That is, without the hope of a Messiah, up to this a hope confined to the people of Israel. And, without the true God, instead they relied on false gods and man-made idols. Unfortunately, that can still be said about many people in our world today and perhaps most of these can be found in so-called “developed” societies. 

But with the coming of Christ, all that has been changed. Those Gentiles who were once far apart “from us” (Jews), have now been brought close by the sacrificial blood that Jesus poured out on the cross. This was the new covenant which embraced not only Jews but all those, of whatever origin, who would approach the cross in loving surrender. In Christ, there is now just one people.

Jesus has become the peace that binds the two formerly hostile groups together. The barrier that formerly divided them has been removed. This is a reference to the wall in the Jerusalem Temple which separated the court of the Jews (to which only they had access) from the court of the Gentiles (open to all). In fact, there were several dividing walls in the Temple - separating Jews from Gentiles, Jewish men from women, priests from people, and the Holy of Holies, only accessible to the high priest once a year. All of these divisions are demolished in Christ. These walls (like all such walls) were a striking symbol of much deeper divisions.

Christ also destroyed “in his own person the hostility caused by the rules and decrees of the Law”. Much of the Mosaic Law, of course, sets moral standards which were not changed by the coming of Christ and are recognised by people everywhere. However, under the name of their Law the Jews had arrogated to themselves a privileged status which set them above and apart from the “pagans”. In particular, they looked down on those who did not observe the rituals of the Law as “unclean”. Many of these rituals have little to do with moral behaviour as such. 

Religion should never be a source of division although, if it is to be true to its convictions, it will stand out as different and challenging - but never exclusive or divisive. Too often in our own days, we Christians have been guilty of the very things with which Paul accuses his fellow-Jews. 

God’s plan, on the other hand says Paul, was to create in Christ “one single New Person” out of the two formerly opposed groups. “Person” here translates the Greek word anthropos (’αυθρωποσ), which means a human being and has no gender connotations. The word for a male is aner (’αυηρ) and the Latin equivalents are homo and vir. (Significantly, our Creed says that in the Incarnation Jesus became a “human (homo)”, not just a “man (vir)” - Jesus is primarily a Person sharing his humanity with both men and women.) 

This ‘New Person’ is the prototype of the new humanity that God recreated in the person of Christ, the second Adam, after killing the sinfully corrupt race of the first Adam in the crucifixion. This New Adam has been created in “the goodness and holiness of the truth” (4:24), and he is unique because in him the boundaries between any one group and the rest of the human race all disappear. (Jerusalem Bible, edited) 

This new “Man” or person is not an individual but is the whole community, the whole Body, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, together with Jesus as its Head. 

This reconciliation or peace was brought about by Jesus dying on the cross as the eloquent witness of God’s immeasurable love for peoples everywhere, irrespective of race, social status or gender. “In his own person, Jesus killed the hostility.” This hostility was replaced by the “good news (gospel) of peace” embracing both Gentiles (who had been far from God) and Jews (who had always been nearer to him). Through the cross Jesus united all in one body, which refers both to the physical body of Jesus that was executed by crucifixion and the Church or ‘mystical’ body of Christ in which all are reconciled. 

In a beautiful Trinitarian phrase, Paul concludes the paragraph with: “Through Jesus Christ, both of us (Jews and Gentiles) have, in the one Spirit, our way to come to the Father.” Jesus is the Way for peoples everywhere, the Way to Truth and Life. 

In the final paragraph today, Paul speaks of the effects of the hostility, the walls between Jews and Gentiles being broken down and being replaced by peace. “You” (i.e. Gentiles) are no longer foreigners but truly citizens together with all Jews baptised in Christ (the “saints”) and part of God’s household (familia in Latin). ‘Family’ in ancient times included the whole household - the extended family of parents, children, close relatives but also servants and slaves.  

Changing the image Paul speaks of the Church as a building of which the Gentiles are now fully a part. This building has the apostles and prophets (i.e. prophets of the early Christian community) as its foundation and Christ as its corner stone. The New Testament prophets, together with the apostles, are the witnesses to whom the divine plan was first revealed and who were the first to preach the Good News. The Church then is founded not only on Christ but also on the apostles and prophets. 

Together all grow in Christ into “one holy temple” and the Gentiles, with the Christian Jews, are progressively being built into a house where God himself lives. 

Paul emphatically makes two points here:

First, he shows how, in the Christian community, Jews and Gentiles have come together in unity and peace as God’s people in Christ. All former barriers are removed. (In his Letter to the Galatians, he also included free people and slaves and men and women as all fully equal in the Christian ‘family’, cf. Galatians 3:28). 

Secondly, the Church is the new Temple of God. The temple is no longer a physical building of bricks and mortar but a community of people united in faith and love with Christ as Lord and to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. “Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst.” 

Rome and St Peter’s could be bombed out of existence and every Christian church building in the world could be wiped off the face of the earth but as long as even a handful of people can sincerely gather together in the name of Christ and the Gospel, God’s temple, the place where he lives, continues to be. In the Church that Paul knew there were no church buildings. The communities gathered in each other’s homes. There are places in the world today where Christians have no other option except to meet in this way, often in secrecy and in fear of persecution. 

Let us try to be more aware of Church as primarily the community of believers rather than as the buildings which we use for our gatherings. 

Furthermore, the “house were God lives” is not a given. As Paul indicates today, it is constantly being built up. It is a living entity which can be growing or dying. That depends on each one of us. Let each one of us work together at building up the part of it entrusted to our care. 

Luke 12:35-38

More advice from Jesus today about readiness. There is an echo of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (found in Matthew’s gospel). We are to be ready, with our belts fastened and our lamps burning. Like men (not women this time) waiting for the groom to return from the wedding. When the master comes and knocks we will be ready to admit him without delay.

There is a reward, a surprising reward, for servants thus prepared. When the master comes back and finds his servant awake and ready, he will seat them at table and himself wait on them. “I have come to serve and not to be served” Jesus had said of himself. He is the one who, as Master and Lord, washes the feet of his disciples. And if the master comes in the middle of the night or before dawn, blessed are those servants who are ready for his return.

This need for readiness is not a reason to be anxious nor a reason to be afraid. Reason and experience tells us again and again that the Lord’s call comes at the most unexpected times. The only solution is to be ready here and now and leave the future to take care of itself.

In our relationships with God, it is always the present which counts. The prepared servant lives constantly in the present and seeks and finds God there. A life so lived takes care of itself - and its future.

Week 29 | Wednesday

Ephesians 3:2-12; Luke 12:39-48

Today’s reading is fairly dense and needs to be teased out a little if we are to get to its central meaning. 

Paul begins by recapitulating, what the Ephesians and the surrounding churches had previously been told, how Paul is God’s chosen agent to communicate the blessing of God’s love to the Gentiles in those places and that it was through a special revelation made to him personally that he was given an understanding of previously hidden messages that God wished his people to know.  

As he puts it, he was given “the stewardship of God’s grace”. The revelation he speaks about is first of all the experience he had on the way to Damascus (Gal 1:16; Acts 9:15) and which was the great turning point in his relationship with God. 

If Paul’s readers will only look closely at his words, they will get some idea of the depth of the “mystery” of Christ, that is, of the whole revelation that has been made to us of the Son of God becoming incarnate as a human being so that we could have a direct and unique experience of God’s love for us and of his desire to make us one with him.  

In particular, this mystery as it affects them involves the intimate unity that now binds Jews and Gentiles together through Christ in a previously unimaginable way. It may be thought of as a secret that is temporarily hidden, but more than that, it is a plan God is actively working out and revealing stage by stage.

This revelation that has come through the apostles and prophets was something quite unknown to, or even desired by, previous generations. They are called “holy” because they have been set apart for God’s service. This is the real meaning of the word hagios (‘αγιοσ), a term also applied to all the members of the Church.

The revelation, too, was not only made to Paul; in fact, as he admits, he came late on the scene. The prophets mentioned here are those of the New Testament and who, in the list of special charisms, come only second to the apostles in importance. The revelation is that the Gentiles are “coheirs, members of the same Body and co-partners” in the promise in Christ Jesus made through the Gospel. There is a total equality between them and the Jewish Christians. This has been brought about by Christ and his Gospel which is directed to people everywhere .  

It indicates the unique aspect of the mystery that was not previously known, namely, the equality and mutuality that Gentiles now have with Jews in the church, forming one body. That Gentiles would turn to the God of Israel and be saved was prophesied in the Old Testament; that they would come into an organic unity with believing Jews on an equal footing was not foreseen.  

By a special grace, a special blessing, Paul has been made the “servant” of that Gospel, even though Paul believes that, because of his past behaviour, he is the very least in the community of the “saints”. He never ceased being amazed at how he had been chosen by God for his mission, especially after the way he had tried to wipe out the Christians before his conversion. 

He describes that mission under two aspects: he is to unfold to the Gentiles all that comes to them through Christ and how that is to be personally experienced by them. 

Up to now all of this had remained hidden with God, the Creator of all. And why was this? It was, says Paul, so that the extraordinary wisdom of God might become known to the ‘Sovereignties’ and ‘Powers’, the evil powers that try to dominate the world. The evil spirits were unaware of God’s plan for salvation and so they persuaded human beings to crucify Christ, and it is only the existence of the Church that makes them aware of it now. For now Jesus has risen and ascended above them all in power and glory. 

It is a staggering thought that the church on earth is observed, so to speak, by these spiritual powers and that to the degree the church is spiritually united it portrays to them the wisdom of God. This thought may be essential to understanding the meaning of “calling” mentioned at the beginning of the next chapter (4:1) where Paul calls on the Christians to live worthily of the call they have received.. The fact that God had done the seemingly impossible - reconciling and organically uniting Jews and Gentiles in one church - makes the church the perfect means of displaying God’s wisdom.

So now, all of us can have the courage to approach our God in complete trust and confidence. 

We, too, can thank God that it is through Jesus Christ and our fellowship in the Christian community, that we have come to know and experience the plan and the love of God in our lives. 

Let us thank all those individuals and groups who, in one way or another, have taught us to know and love God in Jesus. And the obvious response on our part is to go out and, as Church, help others to know and understand the extraordinary things that God has done for us through Christ our Lord. 

There is also, of course, a huge responsibility on all of us to strengthen the unity of all Christians among themselves and also to create close relations with Jews with whom we share so much. And we can include Muslims, who are also “People of the Book”. Let us hear the prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper: “May they all be one…. That the world will believe you sent me” (John 17:21) and help to make it a reality.

Luke 12:39-48

Today we have some further warnings on readiness. The unpredictability of God’s coming for the final call is compared to a thief breaking into one’s house. If one knew when the thief was coming, one would be prepared and have everything well locked up. Few people have not had this experience of being burgled or had their pocket picked. The point is that we do not know the day or the hour. And “the Son of Man will come when you least expect him”.

Peter asks if this image is just for the disciples or for the whole world. Jesus answers by telling a parable.

A faithful and farsighted steward is one who is found doing his job for the household whenever the master returns. The steward was one who had responsibility over the other servants and Jesus could be referring here to his apostles and other leaders of the Christian community. A trusted slave (‘servant’) too could sometimes be put in charge of an estate.

But if the steward feels that the master is “long in coming” and sets about abusing the rest of his staff and wasting his time in debauching himself, he will be severely punished when his master returns unexpectedly. We know that the early Christians believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime but, as time went on and there was no sign of Jesus, Christians could be tempted to become less vigilant and begin to ‘live it up’. It was a dangerous thing to do.

But then Jesus makes a distinction. Those who know their master’s wishes (like his disciples) but are found misbehaving when he returns will be severely punished. Those who do not know (non-disciples, outsiders) will still be punished for doing wrong but their punishment will be less than those who have received their master’s teaching and instructions.

Week 29 | Thursday

Ephesians 3:14-21; Luke 12:49-53

Today we have a lovely prayer of Paul for the church or churches to whom he is writing.  

The passage has been summarised thus: 

The apostle prays that those he is addressing may, like the rest of the church, deepen their understanding of God’s plan of salvation in Christ. It is a plan that affects the whole universe (15), with the breadth and length and height and depth of God’s love in Christ (18), or possibly the universe in all its dimensions. The apostle prays that they may perceive the redemptive love of Christ for them and be completely immersed in the fullness of God (19). The prayer concludes with a doxology to God (20-21). (New American Bible) 

It is a prayer Paul makes kneeling in the presence of the Father. We are accustomed to kneeling during prayer but in Paul’s time it was normal to stand so Paul’s posture here expresses a very special submission and reverence.  

“God is the Father from whom every family gets its name.” There is a play here on the Greek words for ‘father’ (pater, πατηρ) and ‘family’ (patria, πατρια). Patria is used for any social group descended from a common ancestor. Hence, God is the common ancestor of every single person, of every community. This we affirm every time we pray “Our Father” in the Lord’s Prayer. We do not address God as strangers or as outsiders but as Someone who is very close to us in a real family sense. 

Let us lay out more diagrammatically the petitions that Paul makes on behalf of the churches: 

“May the Father give you the power through his Spirit for your hidden self to grow strong; so that Christ may live in your hearts through faith; and then, planted in love and built on love, you will, with all the saints, have strength to grasp the breadth and length, the height and the depth; until, knowing the love of Christ, which is beyond all knowledge, you are filled with the utter fullness of God.” 

Let us note some of the things that Paul mentions here: 

There is a prayer that our “hidden self”, that is, our inner self grow strong through the power of the Spirit within us. 

He prays that, through our opening up to God in faith, Christ may be truly present and active deep within our being. As Paul said of himself on another occasion: “I live; no, it is not I, but it is Christ that lives in me” (Gal 2:20). We, too, want to be able to say this about ourselves individually and collectively. With the mutual relationship that faith opens up, we are to be “planted in love and built on love”. This is the agape (’αγαπη) which must the main driving force of all that we say and do.  

In language reminiscent of the Stoics, he prays that we may have what may be termed almost a cosmic grasp of the role of the Christ. “That you may have strength to grasp the breadth and length, the height and the depth”. Paul uses it to suggest the cosmic function of Christ in the rebirth of the world. It could refer to the size of the mystery of salvation, or preferably to Christ’s universal love on which (next verse) the mystery depends. Christ becomes the Omega Point, to which all creation and creativity is ordered. 

In a paradoxical phrase, Paul prays that the Christians will come to know and understand what is indeed beyond all human knowing, namely, the love of Christ for us and for the whole world. It is the infinite love of God, expressed by Jesus dying on the cross as the uttermost proof of love, the “the greatest love that a person can show”. On this side of death, we will never get beyond grasping this love in a clouded mirror. We live in the Cloud of Unknowing and yet, from time to time, we can be given glimpses of understanding. It is something that the mystics have experienced but in a way that they cannot put in words. 

With this understanding - imperfect though it be - Christians are “filled with the utter fullness (pleroma, πληρωμα) of God”. Christ, who himself is filled with the divine life, fills Christians with it. The Church itself as part of the Body of Christ in a sense completes the fullness of the whole Christ. A Christian enters both the Church and the new cosmos which he helps to build and which is the fullness of the total Christ.  

Faith, knowledge and understanding, love and fullness: these are the gifts which Paul prays for in the communities. Surely we, too, need to make this prayer our own also. 

Finally, Paul concludes with a prayer of praise to God through Christ Jesus. He praises the God whose power at work in us can achieve more than we could ever ask for or even dream of. In one sense, Paul can point to the rapid growth of the churches, in spite of so many difficulties, as a convincing sign of this. And when we see the vastness of the Church today we see the truth of these words. They are the basis of our hope for continuing growth in our own church.  

Lastly, a prayer for God to be glorified through Christ in every generation in the Church. The greater glory of God is at bottom the essence of all living and everything we do is to be directed to this. Faith and love leading to praise.

Luke 12:49-53

We have some passionate and disturbing words from Jesus today.

First, he expresses his deep desire to cast fire on the earth. In the imagery of the Old Testament, fire is a symbol of God’s powerful presence. We remember Moses at the burning bush, the pillar of fire that accompanied the Israelites by night as they wandered through the desert to the promised land, as well as the tongues of fire that hovered over the disciples at Pentecost.

It is this Pentecostal fire that burns men’s hearts and draws them to change the direction of their lives. For Jesus’ wish to be fulfilled we have to play our part in helping to spread some of that fire of God’s love everywhere.

Second, he expresses a longing for his baptism to be accomplished. Baptism here refers to his immersion in the terrible suffering and death by which we will be liberated. In fact, the ritual of baptism where the person to be baptised was immersed in the baptismal pool was seen as a parallel to Jesus going down into death and emerging to the new life of the resurrection. Paul speaks about this.

Thirdly, Jesus says he has come not to bring peace but division on the earth. At first sight, this is a hard saying and it does not make any sense. Is Jesus not the Prince of Peace? Did Jesus not say at the Last Supper that he was giving his peace to his disciples, a peace that the world could not give and that no one could take away? Did he not say, “Come to me, all you who labour and are burdened and I will give you rest”? Was the final greeting of the Risen Christ to his disciples in the upper room not “Peace [be/is] with you”?

Yes, but he also warned his disciples that, after he was gone, they could expect a rough ride. They would be hauled before rulers and governors, they would be beaten and jailed and put to death. People would think they were doing well in ridding the world of them. In that sense, Jesus was certainly not going to bring peace.

And, by the time this gospel was written, Jesus’ prophecy had been well borne out and there was a lot more to come.

The break-up of families, father against mother, parents against children, in-laws against in-laws, were unfortunately only too common as one or more members in a family decided to follow Christ and be baptised. These must have been very painful experiences which no one wanted. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Church in China during the Communist persecution knows how many families were torn apart by their accepting Christianity. (In the Gospel, we see it in the story of the blind man who attached himself to Jesus and whose parents, terrified of the authorities, wanted to have nothing to do with. It is surely an image which was quite familiar to converts in the early, not to mention the later, church.)

Jesus had warned that those who wanted to follow him had to be ready, if necessary, to leave home and family and enter into a new family of brothers and sisters. To follow the way of truth and love, of freedom and justice is always going to arouse the hostility of those who feel threatened by goodness.

But is it right to break up one’s family? We might counter by asking which is the more loving thing to do: to be true to one’s convictions and one’s integrity or to compromise them for the sake of a merely external peace? The one who leaves a family for the sake of Christ and the Gospel shows a greater love for one’s family and will never cease to love them no matter how viciously they may react to the choice the Christian has felt it necessary to make. In the long run, truth and love will prevail. They must.

Finally, hostility, division, persecution, provided the Christian is not directly responsible, does not take away the peace that Jesus spoke about. On the contrary, it is only by being true to one’s convictions and one’s integrity, whatever the price that has to be paid, that peace can be experienced.

Week 29 | Friday

Ephesians 4:1-6; Luke 12:54-59

Today and tomorrow we read a powerful call to unity in the Church. It is in two parts and in today’s reading Paul speaks of the sources of unity, the elements in our Christian life which we have in common. Tomorrow he will speak rather of the variety that exists in the community. 

Summary of this part: 

A general plea for unity in the church. Christians have been fashioned through the Spirit into a single harmonious religious community (one body, 4:12); belonging to a single Lord (in contrast to the many gods of the pagan world); and by one way of salvation through faith, brought out especially by the significance of baptism (1-6, cf. Rom 6:1-11). But Christian unity is more than adherence to a common belief. It is manifested in the exalted Christ’s gifts to individuals to serve so as to make the community more Christlike (11-16). This teaching on Christ as the source of the gifts is introduced in v.8 by a citation of Psalm 68:18, which depicts Yahweh triumphantly leading Israel to salvation in Jerusalem. It is here understood of Christ, ascending above all the heavens, the head of the church; through his redemptive death, resurrection, and ascension he has become the source of the church’s spiritual gifts. The “descent” of Christ (9-10) refers more probably to the incarnation (cf. Phil 2:6-8) than to Christ’s presence after his death in the world of the dead. (New American Bible)

The chapter begins and ends with exhortations to love and forgive one another, which is part, of course, of the overall theme of unity in the Letter. In fact, the chapter lists three different threats to disunity in the community:

arguments between Christians (1-3)

diversity of service in the church (7-11)

unorthodox teaching (14-15)

Each of these threats can be dealt with by all being united together in Christ. We will see the first of these in today’s reading. 

So far Paul has taught that God brought Jew and Gentile into a new relationship to each other in the church and that he called on the church to give witness to his wisdom. Paul now shows how God made provision for those in the church to live and work together in unity and to grow together into maturity.

Real unity can only be said to exist when there is a harmonious relationship between a variety of elements. It is not the same as uniformity; the last thing Paul wanted was to have a church of identical clones. The distinction between unity and uniformity is crucial in the life of the Church today. 

Paul, speaking from his place of captivity (it may not have been much more than house arrest), appeals to the church to remain faithful to its original calling, that is, the call to be a follower of Christ. Implying that there are some divisions among them, he asks them to be more accepting and understanding of each other “with all humility and gentleness, with patience.” They can do this by bearing with one another through love and by being aware of the unity of the Spirit, shown by the deep ties of peace that bind them together.

That peace is the sign of the Spirit at work among them. And it is a truly inner peace and not just an external absence of conflict. 

He then lists the gifts they all share in common. There are seven ‘unities’ listed, reflecting the Trinity but in reverse order to normal:

Spirit- church, Spirit, hope

Christ- Lord, faith in Christ, baptism

Father- one God 

There is one Body, that is, the Body of the church with Christ as its unifying Head

One Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, given to them in baptism

Called together in one shared hope, a confident assurance that they will one day enjoy a glorious future of happiness without end, face to face with God

One Lord, Jesus Christ

One faith in Jesus Christ and his Gospel

One baptism, referring most probably not just to a “baptism in the Spirit” but to the external sacramental celebration by which one was publicly marked as a member of the community.

One God, the Father of each one without exception, who is “over all, through all and within all”. 

With such bonds linking the members together, both Jews and Gentiles, there can be no place for disunity and conflict. The links are both with the Persons of the Trinity and with the members of the community - all sharing in the one Divine Life. 

Let us too today remind ourselves that, today, we too as Christians have all these in common. 

Let us pray that we may grow more deeply aware of these common elements and they may help to bring us all closer together in a common faith, hope and love.

Luke 12:54-59

Here we have two inter-related pieces of advice from Jesus. It is striking how simple and down to earth are the examples which Jesus uses to illustrate his teaching.

Today he takes the common phenomenon of the farmer reading the sky to forecast the weather. With experience, one can become very accurate at least in short-term forecasting from observing the colour and shape of the clouds, the direction and strength of the wind and so on. The wind from the west came from the Mediterranean and so brought rain. The south wind blew from the desert and so brought hot weather.

Jesus asks his listeners, if they are so good at reading the weather signs why are they not equally good at reading the signs that are taking place before their very eyes? They were now in the messianic age. Jesus has been performing one sign after another through the power of his teaching and the authority that he brings, through the healing of the sick, the feeding of the hungry, the calming of storms, the liberating of people from evil forces…

Yet, they do not seem to be able to see the clear hand of God in what he does. They follow him with curiosity to see what they may be able to get for themselves but very few commit themselves to following him as disciples.

Secondly, he asks them why they do not judge for themselves what is right? He urges them to solve issues here and now instead of dragging their opponents to court only to find they lose the case and end up in jail.

If that is wise advice in everyday life how much more important to be ready when we come to face the Judge of judges? If we do not settle our affairs now, in the future it may be too late. Linking this with what has already been said, it is time for us to read the clear signs of God’s call coming through Jesus and to respond by a change of heart and behaviour (metanoia). Then, with no evidence to incriminate us, we will have nothing to fear from the Judge on that day of reckoning and accounting.

Bringing all this down to a more earthly level we might say that in our own time we live in an age which is becoming litigation-crazy. In many situations, both sides often end up the losers (while lawyers laugh all the way to the bank.) The bitter aftermath can last for years.

There may be times when recourse to a court is the only way to see justice done, but very often, disputes are best worked out between the parties involved. For many, the pain of marriage breakdowns can be vastly increased by litigation and can be a source of long-lasting bitterness, especially where the arguments are over large - or even small - amounts of property.

As Christians, we need to develop a real sense of justice in the sense of wanting the best for all concerned. Forgiveness and reconciliation should be a high priority for us. There should be no place in our lives for sheer vindictiveness or, perhaps worse, simply a desire to make a lot of money.

Week 29 | Saturday

Ephesians 4:7-16; Luke 13:1-9

We continue Paul’s plea for unity in the churches. Today he moves on to speak of the gifts or special graces which have been given to each one of the community. “Each one of us has been given his own share of grace.” ‘Grace’ is charis (χαρισ, from which comes ‘charism’, ‘charismatic’). It is a totally gratuitous gift from God which we have in no way earned by our own efforts. As we shall see, these gifts are given to ensure the better service of the whole community. 

Paul quotes from Psalm 68 and, following rabbinic style of interpretation, applies it to Christ. He focuses on two phrases: “He ascended to the height” and “He gave gifts to men”. He uses the text to point to the resurrection and triumphal ascension of Jesus which was followed by the outpouring of the Spirit on his disciples. The intervening phrase, “he captured prisoners”, may apply to the spiritual enemies that Christ overcame on the cross. 

Paul then comments on the Psalm with the observation that, if Christ “ascended“, it could only mean that he had first “descended” to the “lower regions of the earth”. This could mean either that Jesus had come down to earth (“the Word was made flesh and pitched his tent among us”) to dispense his gifts before ascending into glory or it could refer to his visiting the dead in Sheol between his death and resurrection. The first interpretation would seem more appropriate in the context. 

The one who formerly descended is now the one who ascends above all the heavens to fill all things. In other words, “by ascending through all the cosmic spheres and taking possession of them all one after another, Christ becomes the head of the whole pleroma or total cosmos and makes the entire universe acknowledge him as ‘Lord’ (Jerusalem Bible). It is this Lord of all who has given gifts to his people. 

And what are these gifts? The list Paul gives is not exhaustive and is not intended to be. Only some of the more important gifts are named.

These include the gift to be:

apostles: the twelve foundation stones, so to speak, of the whole Church but also including some other key founding members, like Paul himself.

prophets: these are the people who pass on a special message from God relevant to a particular need or situation. Their role is regarded as very important and they are always listed immediately after the apostles. While the apostles are concerned with the handing on and conservation of the traditional beliefs, the prophet’s role is to make sure that the church is faithful to its mission and responding to real and changing needs.

evangelists: their role is to proclaim the Gospel and invite others to know and accept Jesus as their Lord and to become members of the Christian community. “While the other gifted people helped the church grow through edification, the evangelists helped the church grow by augmentation.”

pastors and teachers: those who take pastoral care of the community and those who pass and explain the message of the Gospel to the members. 

In general, Paul limits his list of charisms to those who are concerned with passing on the Gospel message because these are the ones who are most relevant in the present context.  

The purpose of being endowed with these gifts is clear: it is so that all the “saints”, the baptised Christians, join together as one in the work of service to the whole community, to build up the Body of Christ. The particular “saints” Paul mentions here seem to be missionaries and other teachers, but may include all the faithful in so far as they all help to build up the Church.  

It is very clear that the gifts are not meant for oneself but decide the area in which each one is called to make a contribution to the life of the community. 

The desired result of all this is clearly expressed by Paul:

“In this way we are all to come to unity in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God, until we become the Perfect Human Person, fully mature with the matureness of Christ himself.” 

“Unity in our faith” refers to the Christians’ common conviction about Christ and the doctrines concerning him. “Knowledge of the Son of God”: unity is not just a matter of a loving attitude or religious feeling but of truth and a common understanding about God’s Son. It also implies a personal knowing of Jesus and not just a knowing about him. “The Perfect Man” does not refer primarily to the individual Christian. The sense is collective. It can be taken as referring to Christ himself, the New Man, the archetype of all who are reborn, or else (and this sense is to be preferred) as referring to the total Christ, i.e. the whole Body, made of Head and the rest of the Body (cf. Jerusalem Bible, loc. cit.) 

United by a common faith by which we pool our Spirit-given gifts for the service of all in the community and grow in our knowledge and understanding of Jesus our Lord, in time we become the “perfect human person (anthropos, ’αυθρωποσ)”, sharing the maturity and perfection of the Risen Lord himself. This “perfect human person” is not to be seen individualistically; rather it refers to the way in which the whole community becomes identified with Christ as his Body.  

The gifts, then, are not to be, as sometimes happened, bones of contention and division (“I am for Paul... I am for Apollos...”). By their diversity and complementarity they are to be agents of greater unity.  

And that brings us the second half of today’s reading. Paul begs the church(es) not to be immature, not to be like impressionable children who get carried away or tossed about like a cork on a wave by the latest religious fad thrown at them by hacks and charlatans. The nautical image suggests the instability of those Christians who are not firm in their faith. 

Such people are so easily carried away by “every wind of teaching arising from human trickery”. Then, as now, there were many distorted teachings that would easily throw the immature off course. While some of these false teachers may be convinced of what they say, others may be deliberately misleading and even evil. 

It is clear that Paul by speaking in this way was referring to situations that had actually arisen. And indeed the Christians of the day (as in our own) were constantly being led astray by the religious practices of their pagan neighbours and the eccentricities of some of those within the Church itself. 

Instead, by always “speaking the truth in love”, Paul says we shall grow in all ways into Christ. It is a wonderful phrase but not always easy to carry out. We must be unbending in our commitment to truth, never willing to compromise on it, while at the same time reaching out in love and care to all, including those who see a different truth or who are clearly disloyal to the truth. 

If we Christians had always been faithful to that principle, there might not have been the split of the Reformation and many people over the centuries, believed to be heretics, might have remained within the fold. 

And by adhering to this principle of truth spoken in love, we will then “grow in every way into him who is the Head”. This is the test. Does my grasp of and living of the Truth as I understand it lead me to a greater maturity, to becoming someone who more and more grows into the image of Christ, a person “full of grace and truth”. 

Paul concludes the passage with a wonderful image of our growing “in all ways” to Christ: 

“He is the Head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, so that each separate part works according to its function. In this way, the body grows until it has built itself up, in love.” 

This is a truly beautiful picture of unity in diversity which Paul envisages for the church. It is the image of a group of people who share one faith in Jesus as Lord, who acknowledge their origin from one common Father, who are identified by their having been baptised into the community in the name of Jesus and who have a common goal to build each other up into a community of love with the ideal of the perfect humanity of Jesus as their goal. At the same time, each one has a different calling to make their own distinctive contribution to the building up of the community. 

They do this by teaching each other about the Gospel message and its meaning for their lives, by praying together and, above all, by celebrating the Eucharist together. 

At the same time, each member has been endowed with a particular gift by the Spirit. The gift (charis) indicates the specific role that each one has to contribute with others to the building up of the community. 

Luke 13:1-9

Catastrophes or accidents which take people’s lives constantly force people to ask, Why? or Why them? Why was President Kennedy shot in the prime of his career? Why did Princess Diana die so tragically at the age of 36? Why was Gandhi killed just when his country needed him most? Why did that young mother die giving birth to her child? Why did that young father die of cancer and leave behind a family struggling to survive? Why did my father die at the age of 66 while my mother lived to be 92?

Today Jesus mentions two apparently recent incidents in which lives were lost. In one case, Pilate the Roman governor had some Galileans killed in the Temple precincts. Perhaps the Galileans had violated some Roman regulation about public order. In the other, eighteen people were killed when a tower in Siloam, inside the south-east section of Jerusalem’s wall, fell on top of them. There is no other record in history of either of these two events. However, the first is regarded as typical of Pilate’s administration. The New American Bible carries the following note:

The slaughter of the Galileans by Pilate is unknown outside Luke; but from what is known about Pilate from the Jewish historian Josephus, such a slaughter would be in keeping with the character of Pilate. Josephus reports that Pilate had disrupted a religious gathering of the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim with a slaughter of the participants (Antiquities 18,4,1 **86-87) and that on another occasion Pilate had killed many Jews who had opposed him, when he appropriated money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct in Jerusalem (Jewish War, 2,9,4 **175-177; Antiquities18,3,2 **60-62).

It seems that some people at the time were saying that this was a punishment of God on these people for moral wrongs they had done. Jesus disagrees. “Do you think they were more guilty than anyone else who lived in Jerusalem?” Jesus asks. “Certainly not!” he asserts.

In fact, he says, his hearers will all meet a similar fate unless they change their ways. The sins of the victims were not the cause of their death but they are certainly warnings to the rest of us to see if we are ready for such an eventuality. And he goes on to illustrate his meaning with a parable.

A man had a fig tree in his garden which did not produce fruit. Eventually he told the gardener to cut the tree down because it had not given fruit for three years in a row and it was only taking up space. However, the gardener urged that the tree be left for one more year and be given one more chance. In the meantime, he would hoe the ground and add fertiliser. If, after those efforts, there was still no fruit, let it be cut down.

The story can be linked to what Jesus has just said. In a sense the people he has been talking to are like fig trees that have not borne fruit. The three years mentioned in the story may refer to the length of Jesus’ own ministry. However, they still have a chance to turn their lives around, a chance which was not given to those who had died in those two incidents.

We, too, are being given a chance - For a day? A month? Several years? We have no idea. What is clear is that there is no time to waste; we have to start today. For God, the past is not what counts or the future but only the present. As long as I am with him NOW I have nothing to worry about.

Week 30 | Monday

Ephesians 4:32-5:8; Luke 13:1-17

Having spoken about unity and the diversity of gifts in the community, Paul now goes on to spell out more clearly how these qualities are to become realities in the community’s life.

He calls first of all for tolerance and mutual acceptance. “Be friends with one another, kind and forgiving”. And this forgiveness has to be extended as readily as God has forgiven them (and us) so many times in Christ. So often we pray: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” Does it reflect our actual behaviour?

Compassion and forgiveness are the exact opposite of some of the negative qualities Paul had mentioned earlier: bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander.

Instead they are to become imitators of God, precisely because they are his children. But how can one imitate God? We do it by showing to each other the same love that Jesus showed, most dramatically when he offered up his life as a “fragrant sacrifice” to his Father. In the Old Testament the offering of a sacrifice that pleased the Lord was described as having a “pleasing aroma”. We are to make the same kind of offering of ourselves.

Through the concreteness of his humanity, Jesus offers us the way to grow into the likeness of his Father by becoming as much like Jesus as possible. We can imitate his compassion for the sinner and his readiness to forgive our sins. The way we imitate our Lord is to act “just as” he did. Jesus offering his life for us to express God’s love for us is not only the means of salvation but also an example of the way we are to live for the sake of others.

People leading such a life, then, will strenuously distance themselves from certain kinds of behaviour which Paul mentions and, which one suspects, were not unknown among the Christians to whom he was writing: fornication, all forms of impurity, promiscuity; coarseness, salacious conversation and crude humour. Paul is moving now from specifically sexual sins to more general sins, such as greed and other forms of objectionable behaviour.

Such behaviour should not be found among “saints” or a people who are the Temple of the Risen Christ. Instead their voices should be raised in thanksgiving to God for all they have received from him through Jesus and the church.

Certainly people who consistently indulge in immoral sexual behaviour (such as fornication, adultery or promiscuity) to the point that it almost becomes an object of worship (and that is not unknown in our own times), cannot expect to enter and become members of the Kingdom. One cannot at the same time worship God and sex. The “greed” he mentions is apparently sexual greed in this context. Uncontrolled greed of this kind treats others creatures with the worship due to God and so turns them into idols.

“It is for this loose living that God’s anger comes down on those who rebel against him.” This happens not so much because immoral sexual behaviour “makes” God angry but rather such behaviour brings about moral and physical corruption which, if adhered to, of its very nature distances us from God.

The Christians are not to be associated with such people. Although the early Christians did live in normal social relationships with others, as did the Lord Jesus, they were not to participate in the sinful life-style of unbelievers. The same applies to us.

“You were darkness once”, says Paul, referring to their past life as Gentiles, as people without God. Now, because of their conversion and baptism, they are in the light of Christ and are “children of light”. It makes no sense for them to have come in from the darkness and then, by their immoral behaviour, go back into it. As such, they are not just living now in the light of God’s teaching but they are also called to be a light for those around them.

We can be tempted at times to have a very idealistic image of the early Church but it is very clear from the New Testament letters that the early Christians were still infected with much of the immorality which surrounded them.

Today we need to look into our own lives and see if there is anything in our behaviour or attitudes which is not compatible with our membership of Christ’s community. In particular, we might ask what role sexuality plays in our lives: Is it debasing or is it enriching? Does it bring us closer to Jesus or away from him? And to what extent are we influenced by the culture which surrounds us and what are we doing to give effective witness to the Christian Way?

Luke 13:10-17

Last Saturday we saw Jesus telling people that they should not be distracted from their own obligations by getting caught up in tragedies which happened to others. Rather than wonder about the eternal salvation of others, they should pay more attention to their own situation.

Today we have an example of people so busy criticising what others are doing that they are totally unaware of the emptiness in their own lives.

We are told that Jesus was teaching in a synagogue on a sabbath day. In the congregation was a woman who was suffering from what seems to be curvature of the spine for 18 years. There is a certain symbolism in the fact that she was badly stooped and was not able to stand up straight. Spiritually speaking, is that not also our problem too? So many of us are bowed down with the burdens and worries of our lives.

In fact, nearly all the healings done by Jesus can be seen as symbolic of deeper afflictions from which all of us can suffer - at the same time! Deafness (we can’t hear God speaking to us), blindness (we cannot see the truth or understand the Word of Jesus in the Gospel), dumbness (we can’t or won’t proclaim our faith), paralysis and other crippling afflictions (we are not able to do the things we ought to be doing), leprosy (we are cut off from relating with others or we cut other people off), possessed by evil spirits (in the grip of various compulsions and addictions)…

Jesus saw the woman, called her to him and told her she was free from her affliction. Her affliction was seen as caused by an evil spirit and Jesus had liberated her. He laid his hand on her and immediately she stood up straight and began thanking God.

One might expect that everyone present would also start thanking and praising God for what had happened to the poor woman. But no. The chief of the synagogue was indignant that the healing had taken place on the sabbath. Medical services were not allowed on the day of rest. “There are six working days on which to be cured; the sabbath is not one of them,” he said.

The ruler of the synagogue was not a priest. He was responsible for conducting services, inviting people to read the Scriptures and preach, and in general of maintaining order. He was a layman who also had administrative duties such as taking care of the building. Normally, only one person held this post but sometimes it could be simply an honorary position.

In a way, of course, the ruler was perfectly right. A woman who had lived with this kind of ailment for 18 years could easily have waited for just one more day to be cured. But that was not the point, as Jesus made perfectly clear.

He accused the synagogue head and his like of pure hypocrisy. There was not one of them who would hesitate to take their ox or donkey from its stall on a sabbath day in order to give it water. They put the needs of animals before that of a human being.

And what could be more appropriate than to liberate this poor woman from the slavery of her affliction on the sabbath? All the synagogue head could see was the letter of the law. He could not marvel at the healing power of Jesus and the deep compassion behind it. He could not see that he was in the presence of God’s very power.

It would be like someone at Mass criticising the brevity of the reader’s dress while being totally oblivious to the Word of God she was reading - perhaps this very text!

There is also the sinister possibility, which was the case on other similar occasions, that the woman had been put there deliberately to see whether Jesus would violate the sabbath. It was not the sabbath that some of the religious leaders were concerned about but of gathering evidence to convict Jesus of heresy.

The story is an example of taking the beam out of our own eye before dealing with the speck in someone else’s or of none being so blind as those who refuse to see.

In the end, we are told that Jesus’ critics were left covered in confusion, while the ordinary people, often with far more insight than their religious leaders, joyfully marvelled at what Jesus was doing.

Week 30 | Tuesday

Ephesians 5:21-33; Luke 13:18-21

In today’s reading Paul begins speaking about family relationships and, in today’s reading, specifically about the relationship between husband and wife. As we go through the first part of the reading we may feel a certain level of discomfort as it seems to conflict with attitudes which prevail in contemporary society.

Two points can be made:

The reading undoubtedly reflects the prevailing attitudes of Paul’s day and it really could not be otherwise. We do not have to accept all of these attitudes now.

The reading has to be taken in its entirety and, under the cultural overlay, we have to discern the very deeply Christian ideal which Paul proposes and which, in many respects, represents a major step forward in the concept of married life.

Paul’s central message is right there in the opening sentence: “Give way to one another in obedience to Christ.” Marriage is built on a deep, mutual respect of each partner for the other.

Paul will show how, in each relationship, each partner can have a conciliatory attitude that will help that relationship. The phrase “Be subject to one another” was probably not originally part of the traditional material that follows, but derives from the author.

It is debated whether the exhortation is applicable only to the section on wives and husbands or also includes the following passages on the mutual relationship between parents and children, masters and slaves (compare Col 3:18-23).

This opening statement at first seems to be contradicted by the way Paul immediately speaks of the way the wife should respect her husband. She is to look on her husband as the head of the household similar to the way that Jesus is Head and Lord of the Church. And the wife should submit to her husband in the same way that Church submits to Jesus her Lord. (In fact, wives sometimes addressed their spouse as “Lord”.)

To submit means giving up some of one’s own rights to another. If the relationship called for it, as in the military, the term could connote obedience, but that meaning is not called for here. In fact, the word “obey” does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children and slaves. In the context too, this submission is seen as primarily given to God through the husband, just as we say that we love God by loving those around us or Religious obeying God in their superiors.

Certainly this way of speaking reflects the prevailing ethos of the time (and, we should not forget, it prevails in many societies in our own day) but it is becoming increasingly unacceptable in most Western societies. As it is presented here, the wife is seen to be in an inferior position to her husband. This is not acceptable to the contemporary woman who may see her role in marriage as different and complementary but not unequal.

In a sense, too, while Paul seems to use the relationship of Jesus with the Church as an example of the relationship of the husband to the wife, in fact, it is the love of Christ for his Body, the Church, which is the very model of Christian marriage. And, clearly, the emphasis is not on obedience and submission but rather on a mutual, self-giving love, as now appears.

Paul turns to the husband and what is expected of him. The total picture probably goes far beyond what the average Gentile husband of the time would have found acceptable. Paul begins by saying that the “husband is the head of his wife” just as Christ is the “head of the church” and the “Saviour of the Body”. The church does recognise Jesus Christ as Lord but it also knows that that Lord gave his life in love and service for each one of us, dramatically symbolised when Jesus, their Master and Lord, got down on his knees and washed his disciples’ feet. There is a very nuanced concept of “head” here. As the husband is seen having a kind of authority over his wife just as Jesus has over his church, there is also a sense of responsibility for the well-being of the partner. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as the church is to Christ. But the Christ we submit to is one who forgives and loves and nurtures and who takes care of our needs through his Body, the community.

By drawing a parallel between a human marriage and the marriage of Christ to his church, these two concepts are made to illumine each other. Christ is the husband of the church because he is her head and because he loves the church just as a man loves his own body when he loves his wife. The model of the husband’s love for his wife is the love that Christ showed for the Church by giving his life for it to make it holy. Even the wife has not been asked to love her husband to that degree. The analogy between the relationship of Christ to the church and that of the husband to the wife is basic to the entire passage.

Speaking of the Church as the bride of Christ, Paul says that he had washed her clean in water “with a form of words”. This would seem to point to the sacrament of Baptism. So that when Christ took the Church to himself it was “glorious, with no speck or wrinkle… but holy and faultless”.

It was customary in the Middle East, at the time this letter was written, for the “sons of the wedding” to escort the bride to her husband after she had bathed and dressed. As applied mystically to the Church, Christ washes his bride himself in the bath of baptism, and makes her immaculate (note the mention of a baptismal formula) and introduces her to himself.

Husbands, then, are to love their wives in exactly the same way, with the same degree of care and tenderness. They are to give the same love to their wives as they do to their own bodies. And, in fact, in loving their wives in this way, they are also loving themselves. And we know just how well men care for their own bodies and how Christ loves his Body, the Church, of which we are its “living parts”.

Finally, Paul, quoting from the book of Genesis, sums up the reality that is a true marriage: where a man leaves his parents, becomes joined to his wife and the two become one “flesh”. It is clear that, in spite of the impression given in the first part, Paul sees marriage as a totally reciprocal relationship. The basis for such expressions of self-giving love is the quotation from Genesis. If the husband and wife become “one flesh”, then for the man to love his wife is to love one who has become part of himself.

Paul also makes this Genesis text a prophecy of the marriage of Christ and the Church: a mystery, like that of the salvation of the pagans, that has been hidden but is now revealed.

All of this, it would seem, proposes a degree of love and intimacy and care for the wife which went far beyond the customary demands of the time. There would be little problem in a wife “submitting” to such a tender and caring husband. It is, in fact, a call for a total giving of the one to the other. Both give and receive all the love that each can give and receive.

Paul calls it a “mystery” and indeed it is a reality which we can never fully understand. The profound truth of the union of Christ and his “bride”, the Church, is beyond unaided human understanding. It is not that the relationship of husband and wife provides an illustration of the union of Christ and the Church, but that the basic reality is the latter, with marriage a human echo of the relationship.

A Christian marriage, then, is a living out of the union of Christ with his bride, the Church. And nowhere else in our human experience do we see the love of Christ for his Bride more clearly exemplified.

Paul then concludes the passage by summing up: the husband is to love his wife as he loves himself; his wife is to respect her husband. We can also say that the husband is to respect his wife and she is to love him as she loves herself.

Two thousand years after this was written we could hardly express it better.

Luke 13:18-21

At this point Luke inserts two short parables about the kingdom of God which Jesus is inaugurating.

Let us remind ourselves briefly what we mean by the ‘kingdom of God’. The Greek word is basileia (basileia) which is more accurately translated ‘kingship’ or ‘reign’. So it is a network of relationships rather than a place that we are talking about. The basileia of God occurs wherever people are submitting themselves to that loving power of God in their lives and in their mutual relationships, working together to bring God’s love and justice to the world.

Jesus is the symbol, the very embodiment, of the kingdom as, through him, God’s loving power breaks into people’s lives. And, insofar as they accept him and his message, the kingdom is being realised. In the Lord’s Prayer we ask God that the whole world may, in this sense, come under the reign of God when we say, “Your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as in heaven.”

So today, Jesus gives two parables or images of the Kingdom.

First, he compares it to a mustard seed which a man planted in his garden. The tiny seed eventually grew into a sizeable bush so that the birds were able to make their nests in it.

When these words were written the Church, the agent of Jesus’ mission, was still tiny but it had already begun to grow considerably from its beginnings with a handful of Jesus’ disciples. There is an air of hope and confidence that it will continue to grow in spite of the persecutions and setbacks it is facing and will continue to face. How amazed would those Christians be to know that the seed since has grown not into a shrub but into a huge tree!

In our own time, we need to keep fresh the hope and confidence of this parable. In so far as we are dedicated to truth and love we have nothing to fear; ultimately they will and must prevail.

The second parable compares the reign of God to a small measure of yeast that a woman kneads into a batch of dough as she makes bread. In time, under the influence of the small amount of yeast, the whole batch will begin to swell and rise.

In Scripture, yeast, because it is a fermenting agent, usually symbolises what is evil and corrupt but here the emphasis is on its growth effect.

This is an image of how the reign of God spreads through the world. It does so by being totally inserted into that world. Externally it is not seen but its influence is felt everywhere bringing about gradual change. As Christians, we are called to be agents (though not the only agents) of the Kingdom. We can only do this by ourselves being fully inserted in our societies, not by separating ourselves from them. At the same time, we must keep our distinctively Christian vision just as the yeast, though invisible, remains distinct from the dough it is transforming.

If this looks like infiltration, it is! But not all infiltration is bad, not if it is driven by God’s truth, goodness and beauty. Such infiltration does not undermine but builds up and transforms.

Week 30 | Wednesday

Ephesians 6:1-9; Luke 13:22-30

Paul continues speaking about relationships in the home. Today he speaks of children and slaves. (As we saw, the Latin word familia included the whole household: parents, children and servants, who all lived under one roof.)

Children are to obey their parents - in the Lord. This means that they hear in their parents the voice of God; in obeying them, they obey the Lord. This, of course, presumes that what parents tell their children to do is in accordance with truth, love and justice. Children are not bound to follow immoral instructions; on the contrary, they should reject them.

The Fourth Commandment is quoted: “Honour your father and mother.” It is called the “first commandment with a promise”. The reward promised to filial obedience is “prosperity and a long life in the land”. This is a reference to the book of Deuteronomy where the “promise” was the ultimate occupation of the land of Palestine, the Promised Land. Here, the “land” is rather the life without end that Christ brings. (The same meaning as in the Beatitude: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land.” Where the “land” refers, as do the rest of the Beatitudes, to the Kingdom.)

Parents, too, are reminded that there is a limit to their authority. That limit is set by the love and respect that the Gospel calls for in all human relationships. “Never drive your children to resentment.” Children will not always be happy with the decisions of their parents but, where there is clearly a genuine care for their wellbeing, long-term resentment will not be a problem. Children do have a great sense of justice and fairness.

Next, Paul addresses slaves. Again we come to a social arrangement which is not now acceptable. We need to remind ourselves that it was only relatively recently that the institution of slavery was seen as morally unacceptable. Up to that time, it was seen as a perfectly normal arrangement by nearly every society. Even the Church did not see it as a problem for a long time.

The question in Paul’s time was not the institution of slavery which seemed as normal as racial segregation was in parts of the US or in South Africa for generations and was not challenged. What both the Old and New Testaments were aware of was the proper treatment of slaves.

(It needs to be said that many slaves even in ancient times would often have been treated well and seen as integral parts of the household. In the United States, for example, they were often treated like family members to the point that many would gladly have died for their masters and mistresses and were not interested in emancipation. They were given a level of love, respect and care they could not have found living on their own. Even so, the idea behind slavery, that people could be reduced to the level of animals or things to be bought and sold and to be the property of other human beings is seen now as an unacceptable violation of personal dignity.)

Paul, then, calls on slaves to be totally obedient to their “masters”. “The Greek for this word, from which our English term ‘despot’ is derived, indicates the owner’s absolute authority over his slave. Roman slaves had no legal rights, their fates being entirely in their masters’ hands. Slavery was a basic element of Roman society, and the impact of Christianity upon slaves was a vital concern. Guidance for the conduct of Christian master and their slaves was essential” (Jerusalem Bible).

The slaves, then, are to see the person of Christ in their masters and so they behave well not just to please their employers but because, as Christians themselves, they are - like all other Christians - slaves of Christ.

Everyone, be they slave or free, will find the same reward for all the good they do. A slave might be recognised as such by his status but, in practice, he was to be loved as a brother in Christ. (We see some of this attitude expressed in Paul’s letter to Philemon which deals with a slave who has run away.)

There is a word, too, for the masters. Once again, as with husbands and wives, children and parents, Paul emphasises that there are mutual responsibilities on both sides. They are to treat their slaves well, with respect and without threats. Both master and slave are serving the very same Master, who is not in the least impressed by social status.

We have here in this comment of Paul already the seed of the end of slavery - the equal and inviolable dignity of every person. Freedom is everyone’s right; no one can ever belong, as a piece of property, to another person.

In reading this passage, we need to reflect on the way we treat our children today. In some ways, the challenges facing parents in modern society are far greater than in the past but the basic principles remain the same.

We do not have - at least in most societies now - slaves in the strict sense but there are still great gaps in the social status of people. There is still a huge level of exploitation within countries and between countries over people who are employed to work for us. We have the enormous problem of child labour and what sometimes is tantamount to slavery involving thousands of people. Economic and sexual abuse are rampant. The ‘sex trade’ involves the abduction and virtual slavery of thousands of young girls. The main reason for its existence is the market which so-called ‘free people’ provide.

In many ways, we have little cause to criticise the society of Paul’s day.

Luke 13:22-30

The Gospel today speaks in terms of predestination, of those who will ultimately be saved.

Jesus is steadily making his way to Jerusalem passing through many towns and villages. It seems that at this time he is in the region of Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, on his way to Jericho and Jerusalem.

He is approached by a man who wants to know if only a few will be saved. One has the feeling that he expects the answer to be ‘Yes’ and that he regards himself as being among the chosen ones.

Jesus does not answer the question directly but he implies that those who are saved are not necessarily those who regard themselves as God’s chosen ones but rather those who walk a certain path in life. That path, of course, is precisely what he is proposing through his own life and teaching. It is a narrow door, he says, which many will not be able to enter.

When the Master comes at the end to close that door for the last time, some will stand outside knocking and begging for the door to be opened. They will hear very frightening words, “I do not know where you come from.” They will counter by saying, “We ate and drank in your company. You taught in our streets.” But he still says he does not know them and tells them to go away.

Jesus was often accused of eating and drinking with sinners but it did them no good unless, as a result of their contact with him, they changed their way of living.

It is clearly not enough to be just in Christ’s company or to have heard his teaching, for example, being a baptised Catholic or even routinely fulfilling a few religious obligations like being physically present at Sunday Mass but not really part of what is going on. To go in the “narrow door” is to be actively committed to living the Gospel in one’s daily life.

Jesus’ next words are directed to some of the Jews but to Christians also. They will see the great patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets enter the kingdom, not because of their status but because of their commitment to serving God.

On the other hand, many of Jesus’ hearers will be rejected because they relied only on their ethnic and religious origins. But that is not enough. In the meantime, they will see people, Gentile outsiders from the four corners of the earth, people they rejected and despised, going ahead of them into the Kingdom, again because these people heard the call of God and entered by the narrow door that leads to life.

This was already being realised in the early Church as more and more Gentiles heard the Gospel message, were baptised and many died as martyrs. Indeed, as Jesus says at the end of today’s reading, those who were considered last are first and those who saw themselves as first are destined to be last.

It would be wrong for us to read this gospel as of mere historic interest. It is addressed directly to each one of us. It is vital that we, as Catholics, do not think that, simply on the basis of our membership of our Church, we are somehow on an inside track and that, if the worst came to the worst, we could always get a confession or a final anointing to set things straight. That would be very presumptuous and very dangerous on our part. We could very well be in a position to hear those terrible words, “I do not know who you are”.

Each day and all day of our lives we have to walk through that narrow door, that door of faith and trust and love for Jesus and our brothers and sisters. Only then will we find ourselves joining the patriarchs, the prophets and all the saints in that life of unending happiness and union with our God for which we were made.

Week 30 | Thursday

Ephesians 6:10-20; Luke 13:31-35

There is a cosmic sweep to this Letter which goes right through it and it is on that note that we conclude our readings from Ephesians today.

Today Paul describes the spiritual and Christian life as a battle not only against the realities of this world but also against spiritual powers which are alien to God. We cannot deal with these powers on our own; we can only do so with the help and support of God’s invincible power. “Draw your strength from the Lord.”

Paul’s vision throughout the Letter has been cosmic. He has referred constantly to the unseen world, which was very real to people living in an environment whose cosmology was very different from ours. He now sees the Christian life as a spiritual battle with these unseen powers, the evil “in the heavenly realms”.

“Put on the armour of God.” Isaiah describes God as arming himself against his enemies and it is with these arms that Christians, too, are to equip themselves. The reason is that our real enemies are not “flesh and blood”, creatures of the earth, but powerful spiritual beings in the world that we cannot see.

They are the source of darkness in our world. They are “the spirits who were thought to move the stars and, consequently, the universe. They live in ‘the heavens’ or in ‘the air’, that is, the space between the surface of the earth and the heaven where God lives... They disobeyed God and want to enslave the human race to themselves in sin... If Christians are armed with the power of Christ, they will be able to fight them” (Jerusalem Bible).

Against such forces only the “armour of God” is effective; without that help we cannot “hold our ground”. The image is not that of a massive invasion of evil but of individual soldiers resisting an assault.

Although our modern world does not see the cosmos as filled with such superhuman creatures (although they still live in our science-fiction films and TV programmes), the weapons that Paul will recommend are just as practical now as they were then.

What exactly is the armour he is thinking about?

First, there is truth (buckled round the waist) and integrity or righteousness (as a breastplate). These are indeed powerful weapons. With truth, we are on the side of God. The evil spirit is the “father of lies”. With integrity there is perfect transparency and no shadow of deceit or dissimulation. What the evil spirit dreads is to have light shone on the darkness where he hides. These are truly effective weapons.

The breastplate of righteousness is another effective defence against evil. God himself is symbolically described as putting on a breastplate of righteousness when he goes forth to bring about justice.

Yahweh put on justice as his breastplate,
salvation as the helmet on his head;
he clothed himself with garments of vengeance,
wrapped himself in a mantle of zeal. (Isaiah 59:17)

Also needed are “feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace”. While the feet of those who bring good news in Isaiah are seen running barefoot, here the image is more of the strong shoes of the Roman soldier enabling the wearer to cover long distances. What is called for here is an eagerness or zeal to proclaim and spread the Gospel and a strong faith in God and Christ. Faith is seen as a protective shield which, when soaked in water, can easily quench the flaming arrows of the enemy.

God’s saving work in us is our “helmet of salvation” and the word of God (the Scriptures) is the sword of the Spirit with which to fight the enemy. The helmet both protected the soldier and was a striking symbol of military victory.

And, in a way most important of all, is to keep praying “on every possible occasion” for all that we need. We need to pray night and day for each other. And Paul also asks especially for prayers for himself so that he can continue, even in captivity, to uncover to others the mystery of the Good News. He calls himself an “ambassador in chains”. He asks above all for the courage to speak out as boldly as he ought to.

The sword of the Spirit and the need to pray are reminders that we are engaged in a spiritual battle to be fought in God’s strength boosted by the Word of God and prayer.

We, too, need to arm ourselves with the protecting qualities mentioned here so that we can live an effective Christian life in an environment where there are so many threatening influences. We need to pray for each other and give each other the support we need to remain faithful to the spirit of the Gospel.

Above all, we need some of Paul’s courage to speak out boldly and not be ashamed to share our faith.

Luke 13:31-35

Today Jesus is warned by some Pharisees to leave the area where he is teaching. The reason they give is that Herod is after him. This is Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great, whom we have already met. The region of Perea was part of his territory as tetrarch. The warning could, of course, have been just a ploy on the part of the Pharisees to get rid of Jesus by frightening him in this way.

At the same time, there could have been something in the threat because Herod had already executed John the Baptist, although there is no evidence that Jesus spoke against Herod in the way that offended Herod’s second wife.

In any case, Jesus is not moved. He knows that his life is part of a larger plan. He will do his work, including the healing of people and their liberation from evil forces. When the time is ripe, and not before, he will face his passion and death. He will attain his ‘end’, where ‘end’ has the double meaning of the end of his life on earth and his being brought to perfection through his suffering and death - an idea explicitly put in the letter to the Hebrews.

In any case, it has been decided that he will face his death in Jerusalem and nowhere else. Herod is not going to change any of that.

And then Jesus goes on to pray for the city that will be the scene of his death. It is a city that has many times in the past mistreated and killed those sent by God to bring his message. Jesus speaks tenderly of his being like a mother bird who protectively gathers her chickens under her wings. But they reject him, as they rejected many prophets before.

Then he foretells something that must have seemed to his hearers both blasphemous and impossible: “Your temple will be abandoned.” Yet, just 40 years after Jesus’ death, the temple will meet its destruction, never again to be rebuilt.

Finally, he tells them that they will not see him again until they themselves greet him by saying, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” This could refer to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of Holy Week or to his final coming as Judge and Lord of all.

Our lives too are in God’s hands and nothing will happen to us which is in conflict with God’s wishes and God’s plans. Everything is - ultimately - for our well-being. But let us be on the alert to recognise the Lord coming into our lives often in very unexpected ways and through very unexpected people.

Some of those we reject may be bringing - even unknown to themselves - a message from God that we need to hear and follow.

Week 30 | Friday

Philippians 1:1-11; Luke 14:1-6

Today we begin reading what is possibly the most attractive of all the Pauline letters. It is full of so many good things, some of which we will enjoy during the rest of this week and the whole of next week. All the commentators mention the spirit of joy which pervades the letter. This is all the more striking as it was written from prison.

We are not exactly sure which prison but one strong possibility is Ephesus. Rome is thought to have been too far away to make easy communication with Philippi (in Macedonia, northern Greece) practicable. (No emails or telephones in those days!)

The Letter also reveals a particularly warm relationship, bordering on affection, between Paul and the Philippian Christians who were nearly all Gentiles.

The Letter opens in the conventional style of the day, identifying the sender, the recipient(s) and giving a greeting. It comes from Paul and Timothy, although it is understood that Timothy is mentioned in courtesy as a valued colleague and not as co-author.

They identify themselves modestly not as “apostles” but as “slaves” of Christ Jesus, servants of the Gospel. Paul usually refers to himself at the beginning of a letter as an “apostle”. Here he substitutes a term suggesting the unconditional dedication of himself and Timothy to the service of Christ. It is also possible that, in view of his warm relationship with the Philippians, he wishes to stress his status as a co-servant rather than emphasise his apostolic authority.

The letter is addressed to the “saints”, that is, all the baptised members of the community as well as their “overseers” and “deacons”. This is the only place in Paul’s writings where church community leaders are explicitly mentioned as recipients of a letter.

“Saints” means people set apart (by their allegiance to Christ) but does not indicate they are ready for canonisation! We know that many of them had shortcomings which Paul did not hesitate to point out when writing to them.

“Overseer” is a translation of the Greek word episkopos (‘επισκοποσ) and literally means one who ‘oversees’ or ‘supervises’. In Greek culture the word was used of a presiding official in a civic or religious organisation. Here it refers to a man who oversees a local Christian community. The equivalent word from the Jewish background of Christianity is “elder”. The terms “overseer” (episkopos) and “elder” (presbyteros, πρεσβντεροσ) are used interchangeably in Acts. The duties of an overseer were to teach and preach, to direct the affairs of the church, to shepherd the flock of God and to guard the church from error.

From the 2nd century on it would be the term used for a “bishop”, the leader of a local church. It had not have this meaning in the early church although development can already been seen taking place in the Pastoral Letters (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus). At Philippi, however, (and at Ephesus, according to Acts 20:28), there was more than one episkopos and their precise role is not certain.

“Minister” is a translation of the Greek term diakonos (διακονοσ) and used frequently in the New Testament to designate ‘servants’, ‘attendants’, or ‘ministers’. The “deacons” are the “overseers’” assistants, who take care of the more practical areas of church administration.

Generally, their service was meant to free the elders to give full attention to prayer and the ministry of the word (cf. Acts 6:1ff). The only two local church offices mentioned in the New Testament are those of “overseer/presbyter” and “deacon”.

Paul refers to himself and to other apostles as ‘ministers of God’ (2 Cor 6:4), or ‘ministers of Christ’ (2 Cor 11:23). In the Pastoral Letters (e.g. 1 Tim 3:8,12) the diakonos has become an established official in the local church. As with the episkopoi, the diakonoi at Philippi seem to represent an earlier stage of development of the office and again we are uncertain about their precise functions. In Rom 16:1, Phoebe is described as a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae, leading to speculation that there were women deacons.

Later, ‘overseer’ and ‘presbyter’ will become divided into the distinct offices of ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’. Our word ‘bishop’ is a distorted form of the Greek episkopos; our word ‘priest’ a distorted form of the Greek presbyteros, from which also comes ‘presbyter’, ‘presbytery’, and ‘Presbyterian’; ‘deacon’ comes from the Greek diakonos.

The letter is addressed to the Philippians, that is, the Christians at Philippi.

The city of Philippi was named after King Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great. It was a prosperous Roman colony, which meant that the citizens of Philippi were also citizens of the city of Rome itself. They prided themselves on being Romans (see Acts 16:21), dressed like Romans and often spoke Latin... Many of the Philippians were retired military men who had been given land in the vicinity and who in turn served as a military presence in this frontier city. That Philippi was a Roman colony may explain why there were not enough Jews there to permit the establishment of a synagogue and why Paul does not quote the Old Testament in the Philippian letter” (NIV Study Bible)

Paul opens the letter by thanking God and praying with joy when he remembers all the Philippians have done for the spread of the Gospel from the very day of their conversion right up to the present. They have done this both by the material help they gave to poorer churches and because of the sufferings they have gladly endured for the sake of the Gospel. The word ‘joy’ will recur many times in the letter. Prayers of joyful thanksgiving for his readers’ response to the Gospel are a hallmark of the opening sentences of Paul’s letters

Paul is confident that what Jesus who “began a good work in them” in them will continue right up to the day he returns again at the end to bring all his own to himself. Paul is confident, not only of what God has done “for” the readers in forgiving their sins, but also of what he has done “in” them. “Work” here refers to God’s activity in saving them. It is God who initiates salvation, who continues it and who will one day bring it to its consummation. (NIV)

Paul’s strong feelings of affection for them stem from their common sharing in his “privileges”: these include both his chains and his work in defending and establishing the Gospel. They did this by sending Epaphroditus with financial gifts to Paul. For this he is deeply grateful. They had become one with Paul in his persecution. Not surprisingly, they have a “permanent place” in his heart and he misses them so much, loving them with the same love that Jesus extends to them.

He longs for them “with the affection of Christ Jesus”. The deep yearning and intense, compassionate love exhibited by Jesus himself and now fostered in Paul by his union with Christ. This affection reaches out to all impartially and without exception.

Then comes a lovely prayer which he makes on their behalf. It is one we, too, can use for each other:

May your love for each other
increase more and more
and never stop improving your knowledge
and deepening your perception
so that you can always recognise what is best
so that you may be pure and blameless
for the day of Christ,
filled with the fruit of righteousness
that comes through Jesus Christ
for the glory and praise of God.

May your love increase more and more: real love requires that it continue to grow to fullness and maturity.
Never stop improving your knowledge: like love, it must constantly grow and deepen in wisdom and understanding.
Deepen your perception: growing in practical discernment and sensitivity. Christian love must be rooted in knowledge and understanding.
Recognise what is best: one of the consequences of growing in love is the ability to see where the good really lies.
Pure and blameless: the goal of every Christian and one always to be reached out to.
The day of Christ: when the goal will be perfectly realised and when we will be called to account for our service to the Kingdom and the Church.
Filled with the fruit of righteousness: what is expected of all Christians.
For the glory and praise of God: the ultimate goal of all who believe in God.

It is similar to a prayer we saw in the Letter to the Ephesians.

Our love for God is never a given; it is something which must constantly grow and grow.
Love alone is not enough: the gift of discernment is also very precious. It is the skill by which, with God’s help, we can see more clearly which choice is closer to God’s will, so that we “can always recognise what is best”. Christian love is not a mere matter of devotional feeling; it is rooted in knowledge and understanding.

Only in this way can we become “pure and blameless” and be ready for the “Day of Christ”. That is the Day when, with his help, we will reach the “perfect goodness” which is for the “glory and praise of God”. If only we could realise that here and here alone is the purpose of all our living.

Let us say that prayer of Paul for ourselves and for all those around us.

Luke 14:1-6

Today we enter a series of four teachings from Jesus, all connected with meals.

It begins with another example of a confrontation between Jesus and some religious leaders on a sabbath. Altogether there are seven sabbath healings recorded in the gospels, of which Luke mentions five. The other two are in John - the healing of the paralysed man at the Sheep Gate (5:10ff) and the healing of the man born blind (9:14ff).

Jesus had apparently been invited to have a meal in a Pharisee’s house on a sabbath day.

We have mentioned before that the word ‘Pharisee’ means ‘separated one’. They numbered about 6,000 and were found all over Palestine. They taught in synagogues, saw themselves as religious paragons and were self-appointed guardians of the Law and its observance. They regarded their interpretations of traditions to be virtually as authoritative as Scripture (cf. Mark 7:8-13). The Scribes studied, interpreted and taught the Law, both written and oral. Most of them were also Pharisees and hence they are often paired in the Gospel.

It certainly looks as if the invitation was what is known as a ‘set up’ because, we are told, “they observed him closely”. And there (what a coincidence!) right in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy, an accumulation of fluid in the body caused by some other illness. (This is the only place in the original Greek of the New Testament where the term Luke uses for this sickness is found.)

Far from being put on the defensive, Jesus immediately throws down a challenge: “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not?” Strictly speaking, according to the letter of the Law as interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees present, it was not lawful. Because “curing” involved “medical work” and it could take time and energy. By asking them his question before the healing, Jesus made it difficult for them to protest afterwards.

And in fact they dared not give him an answer. To say ‘Yes’ could make them seem lax in their interpretation; to say ‘No’ would seem cruel to the man. So Jesus took the man, healed him on the spot and sent him off.

He then turns to his critics with another question: “If one of you has a son or an ox and he falls into a pit, will he not immediately rescue him on the sabbath day?” They had no answer because no answer was necessary or possible. What Jesus had done was unlawful only according to rabbinic interpretations but not according to the Mosaic Law itself.

Their mindset was revealed and it was not the mindset of Jesus. For them people came second to legalities. For Jesus the law was for people. Jesus was moved by compassion and the well-being of people. Sometimes that meant the law had to be put aside - a principle which they also recognised as proved by the examples that Jesus gave.

How many times have we become the victims of human respect? How often have we failed to go to the help of a person because we were afraid of what people might say or how they might judge us? They may even throw Church ‘rules’ and ‘commandments’ in our face as criticism. But no one who acts out of genuine love for others can go far wrong. No truly loving act can be sinful.

Week 30 | Saturday

Philippians 1:18-26; Luke 14:1,7-11

Today we are given a marvellous and inspiring testimony of commitment to Jesus and the work of the Gospel.

Paul is in prison but, in spite of that, “Christ is proclaimed”. One senses here a throwing down of the gauntlet; no one can stop the preaching of the Gospel. The work of spreading the Gospel will always go on. And that makes Paul happy, especially if, as may well be the case, he has been imprisoned by people who wanted to prevent him evangelising.

Just before our reading begins, he mentions people who are preaching in competition with him and are envious of him. These, he says, are preaching from “selfish ambition” and hoping to cause trouble to Paul while he is in prison. For Paul this is not a big issue.

As long as the Gospel of Christ is preached, he is not too worried about some people’s motives. “What difference does it make, as long as in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed? In that I rejoice.” It is on this note that our reading begins.

In the long run, the continued preaching of the true Gospel will be for Paul’s own good too. He is confident it will bring about his release (which clearly happened).

And much of this Paul attributes to the prayers of the Philippians on his behalf and the help and support he received from the Spirit of Jesus who is, of course, also the Spirit of the Father.

In a magnificent statement he says that his one great hope is that he will never be overcome by adverse circumstances to abandon his belief in God or his commitment to the Gospel but, that on the contrary, he may always have the courage and boldness for Jesus and the Gospel to be glorified through his words and actions, whether this happens by his living or dying. He fears that the circumstances of imprisonment, with all its attendant suffering and oppression, could constitute a real temptation for him to abandon the Gospel and his resolute service for Christ.

As the Jerusalem Bible comments, “By baptism and eucharist, a Christian is so closely united to Christ that his life, sufferings and death can be attributed mystically to Christ living in him and being glorified in him. This union would be particularly close in the case of an apostle like Paul.”

Now follows one of the most inspiring passages in Paul’s letters and indeed in the whole New Testament.

Paul presents himself with a choice which most of us would probably make very quickly. It arises from his opening words: “For me, life is Christ, and death is gain.” Jesus is the totality of his life; outside of Christ, everything else is relative.

On the one hand, death would mean so much more, an intimate and never-ending closeness to his beloved Lord. And yet - by staying alive he would be able to carry on the work for the Gospel and the building up of the Christian community, which is proving so fruitful.

He genuinely does not know which to choose; he does not know which would be the better thing for himself, for the work of the Gospel and for the glory of God. This is his dilemma: that, for himself, it would be so much better to die and be united with his Lord. It would spell the end of all his pains and sufferings, difficulties and disappointments but, for the sake of his beloved Philippians and all his converts, staying alive is clearly the greater need.

In fact, he is convinced (and he was right) that he would survive and be able to be with them for the greater increase of their faith and joy. (This is quite a different situation from his tearful farewell to the Christians at Ephesus, which is recorded in Acts 20:17-38.)

We have here an extraordinary example of what is called in Ignatian spirituality “indifference”. “Indifference” in this context does not at all have the meaning we give it in normal usage, a sense of not caring, of having no interest. Indifference here involves - as it clearly does in Paul’s case - a great deal of concern. The concern is to conform as perfectly as possible to God’s will but to be willing to follow unconditionally wherever that will leads me.

As St Ignatius puts it in his Spiritual Exercises, such a person does not ask for a long or a short life, for health or sickness, for wealth or poverty... but only that God be praised, loved and served in all things.

This is exactly Paul’s position. His first passion is the love and service of Jesus and he is perfectly willing to accept either life or death, whichever brings him closer to his Lord and pleases him.

Probably, we are still some distance from such a level of commitment but let us pray that we gradually grow into the wonderful degree of freedom which Paul’s words reveal.

For, let us be clear, we are dealing here with freedom and choice and not some kind of passive fatalism. Paul is not saying that he does not care what happens to him. On the contrary, he passionately wants what his Lord wants and he positively accepts what his Lord will ask of him. His desire is that his will and God’s will coincide perfectly.

That is the ultimate goal of our lives. It is worth pursuing. It calls for great freedom and brings true happiness.

Luke 14:1, 7-11

Yesterday we saw how Jesus was invited to have a sabbath meal in the house of a Pharisee. We saw how the religious leaders present watched him to see if he would heal a sick man who was placed in front of him so that they could accuse him of breaking the sabbath law. The man was healed and Jesus’ accusers were reduced to silence.

The story continues today with Jesus commenting on the behaviour of the guests, each of whom vies for the honour of occupying the best places at the table. Speaking to them in the form of a parable, Jesus urges them to do the very opposite.

When invited to a wedding feast, it is quite dangerous, says Jesus, to go and take one of the best places because your host may come and ask you to give the place to someone else and you will lose a lot of face. On the contrary, says Jesus, make a point of going to the lowest place so that your host will come and say, “Please come and sit up here near me.” And you will get the admiration (and perhaps the envy) of your fellow-guests. (Of course, for someone with the mindset of the Pharisees, it was a risky thing to do. One might be left sitting at the bottom table!)

Luke may not only have been thinking of Pharisees. It is possible that manoeuvring for the places nearest to Jesus may have been a problem, even at the Last Supper. Luke says that while they were in the upper room that evening, an argument had broken out among them about which of them was the greatest (cf. Luke 22:24).

Jesus concludes with a general principle: Those who raise themselves up will be humbled and those who humble themselves will be raised up. It is another way of saying what Jesus has taught earlier, namely, that the greatest in the Kingdom of God is the one who puts himself at the disposal of others, who uses his gifts in serving the well-being of others and who has no interest whatever in titles, dignity or status.

True Christians put their self-value in the kind of person they are for others and not in some purely external trappings. They are what they are and not what others think they are or are persuaded to think they are.

Week 31 | Monday

Philippians 2:1-4; Luke 14:12-14

Here Paul makes an eloquent appeal for unity among the Christians of Philippi. As he writes from prison, the encouragement and comfort he wishes most from them is that they be “of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing”.

As will become clear in later readings, the Philippians, like many of the churches to which Paul wrote, had their own internal problems which were a source of sometimes deep division.

He proposes four motivating forces which might help them to resolve their differences:

a. their life in Christ: the over-riding element in all Christian living is our warm, intimate, personal relationship with Christ. If this is really the guiding factor in our living together, there will not be much room for serious divisions.

b. love: for Christians, love is, of course, the very central force in all our behaviour with each other. It is, first of all, the love that God has shown us in Christ, especially by his suffering and dying for us on the cross. Secondly, it is the law which embraces all other laws. It is the criterion by which we judge all words and actions. And where there is genuine love between brothers and sister in the community, there cannot be any serious divisions. (Love here, of course, is agape), that deepdown, unconditional desire for the wellbeing of every brother and sister.)

c. the Spirit we have in common: that Spirit is God communicating to us the Gospel message we have received from Christ and uniting us together in a true fellowship. If we are all filled with that same Spirit, then we are going to speak and act in real harmony with each other, driven as we are by a common vision.

d. tenderness and sympathy: this expresses the deep care and concern that we have for each other. It is this encouragement, comfort, fellowship, tenderness and compassion which will dissipate any disunity and discord in the community.

If their community life can be guided by these qualities, then, says Paul, they can be “united in [their] convictions and united in [their] love, with a common purpose and a common mind”. This is not so much a plea for total uniformity but rather the ability to work together towards a common goal in a spirit of tolerance and acceptance of each other.

Paul in general is very pleased with the church at Philippi but, if it could realise the unity he is urging on them, that would make him completely happy. The implication is that complete unity has not yet been achieved and that there are some divisions among them.

As a step towards that unity he gives some advice. They should be free of a competitive spirit, where different groups claim to have the truth, and self-centred conceit (“All out of step except me”). Such ambition or self-centredness is destructive of real unity in the community.

Such competitiveness and conceit is not at all unknown in our own churches today.

On the contrary, they are to be humble and “self-effacing”. That is, they are to be free from arrogance and self-centredness and focused more on the needs of their brothers and sisters.

They can do this by always considering “the other person to be better than yourself”. That does not mean denying one’s gifts and talents but it does mean that the love that each one has for others leads them to giving preference to the needs of others. My gifts are not to be focused on myself but rather are to be used for the benefit of others - just as others will use their gifts for my benefit. In this way, we all gain by reaching out to each other.

All of what Paul says can be applied to our Church living today. We, too, need to be more united, more tolerant and more accepting. We, too, need to be filled with those four elements which will make any real disunity and division - as opposed to acceptable diversity and pluralism - impossible among us.

Luke 14:12-14

After giving the scribes and Pharisees advice on how (not) to choose a place at a banquet, Jesus goes on to teach his host what to do when he holds a dinner. He should not invite family members, relatives, friends and the influential rich from whom he can expect to get similar invitations in return.

Rather he should go out of his way to invite beggars, the crippled, the lame, the blind and be happy that these people can do nothing by way of repayment. This will be a proof of the genuineness of his generosity. Sharing meals with friends is a lovely thing but the point that Jesus is making that our mutual entertainment should not be at the expense of those who do not have enough to eat. It will be a real act of love and not be a form of self-seeking and self-aggrandisement or mutual back scratching in a never-ending entertainment circus.

It reminds us of what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount about loving those who love us. “Even the pagans do that.” There is no real virtue there. In fact, it can be a way of using people to our own advantage. It also reminds us of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In such circumstances, uncaring self-indulgence can in no way be justified.

We might remark here, of course, that there is no such thing as pure altruism, that is, an action that is done purely for others with absolutely nothing for self. Everything we do, we do ultimately for ourselves. We have no choice but to seek our own good; to act otherwise would be quite silly and even wrong. It all depends on how we do it.

A person can seek self by using, manipulating and exploiting others for one’s own gain. But a person can use all their energies for the good of others but, in doing so, there is a feeling of satisfaction in doing the right thing. Even one’s life can be sacrificed as the only way of satisfying self. For instance, a mother may not hesitate to sacrifice her life to save a child in danger. Not to do so would lead to a situation she might find difficult to live with for the rest of her life.

We do have to seek our own interests. We can do that at the expense of others or we can realise that it is by sharing what we have with others in need that we become enriched in a very special way.

Week 31 | Tuesday

Philippians 2:5-11; Luke 14:15-24

Yesterday we saw Paul urging the Philippians to greater unity and he gave them some motivating reasons to help bring it about. Today he gives what is the strongest motivation of all: the example shown by Jesus.

“Let the same mind be in you as was in Christ Jesus.” He begins by asking that the Philippians make their own, assimilate into the very core of their being, the thinking patterns of Jesus himself. He then shows what that thinking pattern was. This is a call not just to model oneself on the moral behaviour of the historical Jesus but on the entire Christ event as it is depicted in the following hymn. The same relationships should exist among the Philippians as they have with Jesus Christ, that is, they are to love and serve each other as they love and serve Christ. There can be no separation of these two realities.

This comes in the form of a hymn. It is not certain whether this was an already existing hymn which Paul borrowed or whether he composed it partially or in full himself. Clearly, it expresses exactly what Paul wants to say.

The hymn is in a number of parts, each one highlighting a stage in the ‘mystery’ that is Christ for us:

a. divine pre-existence
b. the kenosis or self-emptying of the incarnation
c. further kenosis in death
d. glorification in resurrection and ascension
e. adoration by the whole universe or cosmos
f. the new title of ‘Lord’.

“This hymn is concerned solely with the historical Christ in whose personality godhead and manhood are not divided; Paul nowhere divorces the humanity and divinity of Jesus, though he does distinguish his various stages of existence” (Jerusalem Bible).

a. ‘His state was divine’. Here Paul affirms that Christ had all the attributes of God himself and is fully God, who always was and always will be.

b. Yet he did not cling, hold on tenaciously to that ‘equality with God’ with all its status and privileges. This does not mean that he renounced in any way his divine nature; that would be impossible. But, in contrast to Adam who was seduced into wanting to be ‘like God’, he let go of all the honours and reverence that were his inherent right.
He ‘emptied’ himself totally and, while still being God and Lord, took on the form of a slave (all servants were slaves in those times) and the human condition which we all share. He became a slave (doulos) although he was Lord (kyrios). There is probably a reference here to the Suffering Servant we read of in Isaiah (52:13-53:12), parts of which we read during the Good Friday liturgy.
Above all, he lived in total submission to his Father, “not my will but yours be done”. In the words of John’s gospel, the Son “hid himself” by assuming human nature and becoming, in the words of Hebrews, “like us in all things but sin”. Or, as the hymn today puts it: “He became as human beings are.” This ‘emptying’ in Greek is kenosis, the word often used in commentaries for what Jesus did for us.
The glory which was his by nature and by right could now not be seen (except in the momentary breakthrough of the Transfiguration). He was seen as just a man, a human being. He shared all our limitations, like us in all things except sin.
(However, we have to be careful to keep a balance: Jesus was truly God but he was also truly and in the fullest sense, a human being (anthropos, homo) and a male human being (aner, vir) at that. Even today, one hears Christians understating Jesus’ humanity, as if it was only an external veneer. It was a real man who suffered and died on the cross; anything less diminishes the full meaning of the Incarnation and the witness of God’s love which the Passion is.)

c. But Jesus did not stop there. Even in human terms, he further ‘emptied” himself and accepted death, death on a cross. Here is the ultimate submission and obedience to the Father’s will: the surrender of his life. And it is the ultimate in self-emptying. There was hardly anything more degrading and humiliating than crucifixion. The crucified person was a convicted criminal and put to death by a method of appalling cruelty in full view of the public and, left hanging there naked, stripped of every vestige of human dignity. This was the degree to which Jesus accepted to go in order to show the depth of God’s love for us sinners.

(But, for us, there is no shame in Jesus’ nakedness. It is a reversal of the situation of our First Parents, when, after their sin, their nakedness became a badge of shame and guilt. Cf. also John 21:7 and Peter’s sense of nakedness, linked to his sin.)

d. If that had been the end, our faith, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14, would be in vain. “But God raised him high”, literally in the Greek, “super-raised” him through his resurrection and ascension. And “gave him the name above all other names”. The Risen Jesus is now addressed as “Lord”, the name that belongs to him as the Son of God, sharing the very nature of his Father. A name which puts him above all other created beings, including angels and archangels.

e. And the whole universe, divided traditionally into the ‘heavens’, ‘earth’ and ‘underworld’, bends its knee at the name of Jesus. Bending the knee expresses even greater submission than standing in the presence of a greater person.

f. Now every tongue, that is, people in every corner of the earth, will acclaim Jesus as Lord. This is the very essence of our Christian belief: Jesus is Lord, sharing in the very nature of God. By calling Jesus Lord we give glory to God the Father.

This hymn is one of the crucial passages in Paul’s letters and indeed in the whole New Testament. It goes right to the heart of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ. As Paul says at the beginning, it expresses the very mind of Christ and, until we have fully assimilated that “mind” into our own way of seeing our lives, we are not yet fully his disciples.

We, too, have to learn how to empty ourselves and surrender totally into the hands of Jesus and the Father.

Luke 14:15-24

Today we have the last of four teachings of Jesus linked with meals. It was prompted by the remark of a guest at table who said, “Happy are those who eat bread in the kingdom of God.” It was very common to associate the future Messianic kingdom with a banquet.

Jesus responds with a parable which is a warning to his complacent listeners, many of whom probably smugly presumed that they would be among the small minority chosen to eat in the Kingdom.

A man threw a large dinner party with many guests invited. But when the time came and the guests were reminded, one after another they gave excuses why they were not able to come. One had just bought a piece of land and had to inspect it; another had just bought some oxen and had to try them out; a third had just got married. It seems that the original invitation had been accepted but when the final invitation came excuses were made. In fact, none of the excuses has much validity. One would not buy a field and only then look at it nor would one buy oxen without having tried them out before the purchase.

On hearing this, the master got very angry and ordered his servants to go out into the highways and byways and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame. After this, the servants reported that there was still room so they were given orders to scour the roads and bring in as many as they could find. “I want my house to be full,” said the host, “but none of those originally invited will taste a morsel.”

The parable is a clear message from Jesus to his Jewish listeners. Many of them, especially the religious leaders steeped in complacency and presumption, had rejected the invitation to follow Jesus and enter the Kingdom. Some of them would actually conspire to bring about his death. Their place would be given to those formerly seen as outcasts, both Jews and Gentiles, people aware of their needs, the “poor in spirit”. There would be a special place for the poor and the handicapped, people often seen by traditional Jews as people abandoned by God and buried in sin.

To go back to the beginning of the passage, blessed indeed are those who eat together in the Kingdom but it is clear that only those who respond to the invitation will enjoy the privilege.

We have no more right to presumption than those Jews who rejected Christ. We too are being invited to go into the Lord’s banquet hall but it is important that we respond to the call. We do that by our totally accepting and living out the teaching of Jesus our Lord. And part of that teaching is that we, too, invite and welcome into our community the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame - taking these words in their broadest sense.

No more than those fellow diners of Jesus, our presence at the Kingdom banquet is never to be taken for granted.

Week 31 | Wednesday

Philippians 2:12-18; Luke 14:25-33

Today’s reading follows immediately on yesterday’s hymn about the “mind of Christ”, depicted in his “self-emptying” as his way to glory.

Paul now exhorts the Philippians to follow the teaching he has given them, which is none other than the teaching of Jesus and the Gospel. They did follow his teaching when he was with them (during visits on his second and third missionary journeys) and he hopes that they will continue to do so now that they are separated from each other.

He tells them to work out their salvation “in fear and trembling”. Working out their salvation means leaving themselves continually open to the loving influence of God in their lives. Salvation is not something that one achieves by one’s own efforts; it comes from accepting the love of God into one’s life and behaving accordingly. As Paul says today, “It is God, for his own loving purpose, who puts both the will and the action into you.” Every good thing we say and do, we say and do in him and through him - and for him.

The phrase “in fear and trembling” is a biblical cliche’ used several times by Paul and is not intended in a frightening sense. Rather it calls for that sense of awe and reverence which comes when we begin to grasp the transcendence, the unknowability of our God.

Paul now indicates some of the areas where we ensure that we experience the saving power of God and have the mind of Christ. All that has to be done should be carried out without complaining or arguing. One senses that in fact there was a certain amount of complaining and arguing going on among them. Such complaining could be discontent with their lot resulting in grumbling against God. The arguing could be over issues in the church which resulted in division and disunity.

Paul wants the Philippians to be “perfect children of God” among a “deceitful and underhand brood”. He wants them to give a convincing witness of the Gospel vision in the unbelieving and immoral world which surrounds them.

In the surrounding darkness of sin and immorality, they will then shine out like stars. This reflects the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount when he told his disciples to be the light of the world, to be a lamp giving light to all in the house, to be a city on a hill... (Matt 5:13-16). An invisible Christian is a contradiction in terms; and an immoral Christian is a wound on the Gospel and on the community.

But if the Philippians are able to act as Paul urges, it will give him great pride on the day of judgment for it would mean that all his efforts among them had not been in vain. It “would mean that I had not run in the race and exhausted myself for nothing”.

And he goes so far as to say that even if his present imprisonment ends in shedding his blood through a martyr’s death, it would still be an occasion for great joy and thanksgiving both for him and for them. “Even if I am poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with all of you.” (Another example of the mood of joy which pervades the Letter.)

Libations, or the pouring out of blood, were common in both Greek and Jewish sacrifices. Paul uses this image to express his share in the overall offering that the Philippians have made and are making through the living out of their Christian faith. He may be referring to his whole ministry as one large thanksgiving sacrifice or it is more likely he is speaking of his present imprisonment which might well bring him a martyr’s death. His life would then be poured out as a drink offering accompanying the sacrificial service of the Philippians.

Again we see Paul’s total and unconditional giving of himself to Jesus and the work of proclaiming the Gospel. In this, his own life is secondary. The only thing that matters is - in life or death - being close to Jesus, his beloved Lord.

And, if Paul loses his life, it will not only be a source of joy for Paul himself but something over which the Philippians too should rejoice, because it is another victory of the Gospel over sin and evil.

Let us reflect today on the quality of our witness to the Gospel, both individually and collectively. What image do we have individually and collectively in our society?

It is not a question of being loved and admired. When we are being most Christian may be a time when we will be most violently attacked. But never let it be said that we are clearly unfaithful to the vision of the Gospel we claim to follow.

Luke 14:25-33

Luke’s gospel is noteworthy for its extremes. On the one hand, it shows the radical and uncompromising demands that Jesus makes on those who would be his followers and, at the same time, emphasises as none of the other gospels do the gentleness and compassion of Jesus for the sinful and the weak. Both pictures have always to be kept simultaneously in view and they are in no way contradictory. Today and tomorrow we will see both of these images of Jesus back to back.

In today’s passage we see Jesus, as was often the case, surrounded by a huge crowd of people. They are full of enthusiasm and expectation but Jesus very quickly pulls them up short. If anyone comes after him, Jesus says, and is not prepared to hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters and indeed his very own self, he cannot be accepted as a disciple. This is a very shocking demand, especially for a society where people’s whole lives were centred on their families. Luke is alone in asking that even the wife, too, be abandoned but this is just an example of the totality of our commitment to following Jesus.

However, we have to make two qualifications. The word “hate” is a Semitic expression not to be taken literally. It could not be so taken as the whole of Jesus’ teaching is based on love not only of blood relatives but of strangers and even enemies. It is rather a dramatic way of saying that anyone who puts any person, even those closest to them, before total commitment to Christ and his mission is not ready to be a disciple. There can be no compromise here; it is all or nothing.

We also have to say that Jesus is not recommending a literal abandonment of one’s family. That could be highly irresponsible and a violation of that commandment of universal love. But it is clear that, for those who want to be part of Jesus’ work, they have to give themselves completely and unconditionally. And, where there is a choice between the clear call of the Gospel and personal attachments, they have to let go of the latter.

It is important for the crowd to hear this. Following Christ is not just like football fans stalking their favourite player or ‘groupies’ following a pop star from city to city. There is a price to be paid and they need to know that there is one and what it is. That price is the cross, a level of sacrifice and suffering - perhaps even of one’s life - that each one must be prepared to undergo for the sake of the Gospel and the building of the Kingdom.

So, to illustrate this Jesus gives two examples:

- One is of a man who had a plan to build a tower. Before he started, he made sure that he had all the necessary resources. Otherwise he might find that, after laying the foundations, he could not finish the work and he would become the laughing stock of others. “Ha! Ha! He began to build what he could not finish.”

- In the second example Jesus speaks of a king with 10,000 soldiers who finds he is going to war with another king who has 20,000. If he thinks there is no way he can win, he will send an embassy to negotiate the best peace terms he can get.

Similarly, says Jesus, no one can be a disciple of his who is not ready to let go of everything he has.

The following has to be absolute and unconditional. How many of the crowd listening were ready for that? How many of us are ready for that? Am I ready? And what are the things I am clinging to? What are the things I cannot let go of? And why?

To be a disciple of Jesus means being absolutely free. It reminds one of Francis of Assisi leaving his family and taking off all his rich and fancy clothes to replace them with a beggar’s rags and being filled with a tremendous sense of joy and liberation. Do I want to be a disciple of Jesus? To what extent? Am I ready to pay the price he asks?

The paradox is that once I pay the price I will get so much in return. Ask Francis or Mother Teresa…

Week 31 | Thursday

Philippians 3:3-8; Luke 15:1-10

Paul has already mentioned divisions and arguing among the Philippian community. Today he indicates one source of the problem, namely, the agitation of the “Judaisers”. We already saw this problem when reading the Letter to the Galatians. Clearly it was a fairly widespread phenomenon. Perhaps it was less expected in Philippi, where there were not many Jews and, apparently, not even a synagogue. (In Acts we are told that on a sabbath soon after his arrival in Philippi, Paul went outside the city gates where there was a gathering place for prayer near the river, cf. Acts 16:12. Clearly Jewish prayer is indicated.)

The first Christians were all Jews and in the beginning they naturally followed many of their traditional customs. But, once non-Jews began to be accepted as full members of the Christian community, many of these traditions and the place of the Mosaic Law were seen in a different light. It gradually became clear that the teaching of Jesus transcended the Mosaic Law. It was not that the Law was abolished but rather that the demands of the Gospel included and went far beyond the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is quoted as saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil” (Matt 5:17)

One of the most basic marks of identity for the Jews was circumcision. The Jews were not the only people to practise it (Muslims also picked up the custom) but for them it had a very special religious significance as God’s people. Soon after non-Jews, “pagans”, began to be admitted to baptism, it became clear that the custom of circumcision should not be extended to them. (It would have been a very painful operation for adults, who formed the bulk of converts, to undergo.)

However, in many places, especially in more outlying areas of the Jewish diaspora*, there were Jewish converts who felt that traditional Jewish customs should be preserved, in particular, the custom of male circumcision. As we saw, Paul has much to say about this in his letter to the Galatians.

But in Philippi, too, he was faced with this problem. After attacking his critics and referring to them contemptuously as “dogs” and “cutters”, he claims that the Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, were the “real people of the circumcision”. “Dogs” was a highly insulting term, often applied to Gentiles, because of their ritual uncleanness. As scavengers which would eat anything, dogs were regarded as very unclean. Even Jesus used the term about Gentiles, indicating their ‘uncleanness’ (Matt 15:26). Paul is suggesting that the Judaisers are also, in a sense, unclean.

He sees circumcision in a spiritual sense. The truly ‘circumcised’ are those who are inwardly united with God through his Spirit and not those who have had a physical operation on a part of their body. The cutting of the body by itself is no guarantee of true allegiance to God. (We might say the same of the purely external observance of a sacramental ritual, e.g. pouring water and saying some words in Baptism.)

In calling them ‘cutters’ Paul is using a term (katatome, literally ‘cutting down’) as a contemptuous pun on ‘circumcision’ (peritome, literally ‘cutting around’) and so implying a comparison between physical circumcision and the self-inflicted gashes in pagan cults, as described in the famous ‘competition’ between Elijah and the priests of Baal, who slashed themselves in their frenzy, cf. 1 Kings 18:28.

Instead, it is the Christians who “are the circumcision”; they are those who worship through the Spirit of God and whose boast is in Christ Jesus and who do not put their confidence in the flesh, that is, merely outward observances of the Old Law, or weak human nature.

If it were, then Paul says he is more qualified than most other Jews. He then proceeds to present his Jewish credentials, credentials that probably none of his Judaising opponents could match:

Even though born in Tarsus, he is a true Hebrew, belonging to the tribe of Benjamin. His Jewish roots are deep and unambiguous. Jerusalem, the Holy City, lay on the border of the tribal territory of Benjamin.

Both his parents were Hebrew (unlike some of the diaspora Jews or those converted to Judaism) and Pharisees too, as he says elsewhere. We know also that, unlike Hellenist Jews who would have spoken Greek, Paul knew Aramaic (Acts 21:40).

He was physically circumcised at eight days after his birth, as laid down by the Law (cf. Gen 17:12).

When it came to observing the Mosaic Law, he was a Pharisee. Nothing more needed to be said about his orthodoxy. As we know from the gospels, the Pharisees made a point of observing the Law in its tiniest details. As for working for his religion, he was one of the most zealous in persecuting the infant Church. If observing the Law could make a person perfect, then Paul was absolutely without fault.

But that all changed when Christ came into his life. All those things he formerly believed brought him closer to God he saw now as barriers. The former advantages were now seen as grave disadvantages; the former profits seen now as losses.

For him now everything is outweighed by the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. And this is not knowledge about Christ but a personal, intimate and mutual knowing which colours every facet of his life.

And it is not that the Law is wrong; it is just not needed. It has been superseded. Union with God is now seen not as the external and perfect observation of laws, regulations and traditions but the establishment of a close, personal relationship with God through Jesus, allowing God to work in one and bringing about a complete transformation in one’s thinking and behaviour.

Unfortunately, there are still Christians today who measure the quality of Christian life by strictness in keeping rules and regulations and these tend also to be very critical of those they see as less observant than themselves.

Obviously, for the sake of good order, the Church, like any other society, does need a certain number of laws and regulations. But we must never forget that, ultimately, we will be measured not by our keeping of these regulations but by the depth of our relationship with God in Christ and our living out of the Gospel in relationship with others. It is the level of our loving that will be the criterion. “By this will all know that you are my followers, if you have love for one another.”

____________________________________
*It is not unusual for ethnic or religious groups living overseas and surrounded by “outsiders” to be more conservative and more concerned with preserving traditional marks of identity than those who are at the centre.

Luke 15:1-10

If yesterday’s Gospel showed Jesus at his most radical (”No one can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has”), today we see his compassionate and understanding side.

They are not contradictory.

The gospel says that tax collectors and sinners were gathering round to listen to Jesus. To some of the Pharisees and scribes this was quite scandalous. “This fellow [Greek houtos, ‘outos: one can hear the contempt in the phrase] welcomes sinners and eats with them.” As far as they were concerned, any God-fearing person, not to mention a rabbi-teacher, would have absolutely nothing to do with such people.

It was bad enough socialising with them but to share their food was unthinkable; they were unclean and one became unclean by sitting at the same table with them. To eat with people was a sign of recognition and acceptance; as far as the Pharisees were concerned these were non-people. It only confirmed the Pharisees and scribes in their opinion that Jesus was a person to be removed.

In reply, Luke gives us three separate parables touching the same theme. We have two of them today. The third and most famous - the Prodigal Son - will not be read at this time but will appear elsewhere in the liturgical readings (Year C, 24th Sunday).

Each one is a picture of God’s attitude towards the sinner and it is very different from that of the Pharisee.

The first is of a shepherd who has lost one of 100 sheep entrusted to his care. The theme of the sheep and the shepherd is common in the Old Testament. We think of the famous Psalm 23 (‘The Lord is my shepherd…’) and a beautiful passage in Ezekiel (34:11-16). Without hesitation, the good shepherd leaves the 99 “good” sheep and goes off looking for the stray. When he finds it, he puts it on his shoulders and comes back in jubilation, inviting all his friends and neighbours to rejoice with him. “Rejoice with me for I have found my lost sheep.”

Similarly, concludes Jesus, there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who sincerely repents and comes back to God than over many (self-?)”righteous” people who have no need to repent, or who think they have no need to repent. There seems to be an ironic and sarcastic tone here. Who does not need to repent of something at some time? Jesus presents a totally different attitude to the repentant sinner, and he gives it as God’s own attitude.

The second parable is similar. A housewife who has 10 silver pieces - probably the sum total of her wealth - has lost one of her coins. Will she not turn the whole house upside down looking for it? A house like this would typically have no windows and rough earthen floors (and, of course, no electricity!), making a search quite difficult. But, when she does eventually find it, she will call in all her friends and neighbours to share her joy. “Rejoice with me! I have found the coin I lost.” Again Jesus says there will be even more joy than this in heaven over one sinner who repents. ‘In heaven’, of course, means ‘with God’.

We need to remember that these stories were told as Jesus’ response to the criticism of some scribes and Pharisees. He had absolutely no reason to apologise for his mixing with tax collectors, sinners and other social and religious outcasts. He was like the shepherd or the housewife. He was looking for people who were lost so that he could bring them back.

He spent time in their company not because he did not mind what they did; on the contrary, his whole purpose was to change them. But he could not do that at a distance.

The mind of the Pharisee was different. These people were sinful and unclean and the “good” person had to have no contact with them of any kind or they too would become unclean.

Notice the different motivation. The Pharisee was only thinking of his own spiritual and ritual purity. Jesus was thinking of the person who was lost and needed to be brought back to a world of truth and love. And so he reached out. He went to where the sinner was. Although the Pharisee thought he was spiritually and morally strong, yet his avoiding the sinner showed he was afraid of contamination. Jesus was not afraid of such contamination; he was the really strong one. He could be with the sinners without becoming one of them.

Much of this is highly relevant for our Christian life today. There is probably a lot more of the Pharisee in our Christian hearts than we are prepared to admit. “Good” Catholics tend to keep away from “immoral” situations and the people who are there. “Good” Catholics do not like to be seen in certain places which do not have a “good” reputation. They even call them “occasions of sin”.

We tend to live in enclosed enclaves (we can hardly call them ‘communities’) taking care of our own spiritual welfare. But that is not the Church that Christ founded. We are called to proclaim the Gospel. We are called to reach out to the sinner. To do so we have to welcome them and eat with them. Instead of living in sanitised suburbs, we should be down in our inner cities, in our pubs and discos, in our “red light” districts reaching out and listening and, where possible, bringing back a sheep that is lost and does not know where it is going.

Week 31 | Friday

Philippians 3:17-4:1; Luke 16:1-8

Paul continues to warn the Philippians about not being led astray in the living of their Christian faith.

He urges them to follow Paul’s own example. This might sound arrogant but Paul, who had been himself such a devout and observant Jew, is utterly convinced that his whole life has now been taken over by Christ and he now sees life in a completely different way. He is equally convinced that the Way of Jesus goes far beyond what the Law demands and is the only test of a true interior spirituality.

He also urges them to use as models other members of the community who see things the same way as Paul does.

Once again he deplores the presence of some who are “behaving as the enemies of the cross of Christ”. Their lives are in glaring contrast to Paul’s own conduct and to the truth of the Gospel. They are behaving in a way which negates all that Jesus did for us by dying on the cross. Jesus’ death was our liberation and these people want to go back to a stifling and arid observance of the Law.

“They make food into their gods.” This does not quite mean that they live to eat but rather that they have given a quite irrational importance to dietary laws. A person who eats “clean” food is good; a person who eats “unclean” food is bad. Jesus had this accusation thrown at him more than once. He responded by saying it was not what went into the stomach that counted but what came out of the mouth and the heart.

“They are proudest of something they ought to think shameful.” This is a veiled reference to the prominence that circumcision gives to the male sexual organ, something that in all modesty (‘shame’ in that sense) we normally keep out of sight.

“The things they think important are earthly things.” The Law is something ‘earthly’. Although it was given by God on Mount Sinai, people’s goodness and virtue is being measured not by spiritual values but by the external, physical observance of certain actions and rituals.

But for the followers of Christ, it is different. “Our homeland is in heaven.” That is, our eyes are focused not on the things we do in this world, including religious actions, but on God our Father, on Jesus his Son and our Brother and on the Spirit that guides us into all truth and love. We live here, we “work out our salvation” here, but ultimately we do not belong here. We are on our way to a better home, where “every tear will be wiped away”.

We look forward to the day when Christ Jesus, Saviour and Lord of the whole universe, will come to take him to himself and transform our corruptible selves into something glorious that shares the very life of God.

Jesus’ power, earned by his total obedience in accepting death and given to him in his resurrection-ascension, is total and absolute. He will “change our lowly body”, subject to weakness, decay and death, to be like his glorious Body. The resurrection body, received already by Christ, who is the “first-fruits”, will be shared by believers in the future resurrection “harvest”. Then, the glorified Christ, as Alpha and Omega will draw all creation - us included - into total conformity with Himself, who is the image of the Creator God.

So, hang in there, urges Paul. “Do not give way but remain faithful in the Lord.” They are not to be led astray by the “dogs” and “cutters” who do not understand the call of the Gospel and are creators of division.

Our communities, too, can be undermined by people who, perhaps with good intentions, actually act against the spirit of the Gospel. Sometimes they are those who want to turn the clock back and restore customs which the Church sees as no longer relevant in our day. Sometimes they are those who neglect all tradition and act in an individualistic and self-centred way, where freedom becomes licence.

It is only by constant listening to God’s Word, constant sharing and careful discernment of the signs of the times that we can remain faithful to the true spirit of Jesus’ teaching and the Gospel.

In the last sentence today, Paul expresses his deep affection for the Philippians, arguably his favourite church community. “I miss you very much, dear friends; you are my joy and my crown.” Once again the word “joy” comes in. And they are also his “crown”, the high point, as it were, of his evangelising work:- great praise indeed for them.

How would Paul value our community, our local church, if he were to come among us today? Would we be his joy? Could we be seen as a crowning example of a Christian people?

Luke 16:1-8

After the three wonderful parables about God’s mercy and longing for the reconciliation of the sinner, Luke swings back again in chapter 16 with two parables and related teaching about our use of material possessions and puts some of the responsibility for our salvation back on ourselves.

The first is a story about a rather dishonest steward or manager. His responsibilities were to handle all the business affairs of his employer. However, he had been mishandling his employer’s funds and was about to be fired. One thinks of the prodigal son who utterly wasted the inheritance his loving father had given him.

Immediately the steward begins to think of his future. He does not have the strength to do manual labour and to go begging would be a terrible loss of face. So he thinks of a stratagem by which he calls in all his employer’s debtors and reduces the amounts they owe.

The debts incurred were considerable. One hundred measures of olive oil was equivalent to about 800 gallons or the yield of 450 olive trees, while 100 measures of wheat was equal to about 1,000 bushels or the yield of 100 acres. Very few farmers would have had anything like that kind of land in Jesus’ time.

By doing this favour, the steward hopes to be able to find alternative employment with one of them. Surprisingly, his employer, far from being angry, praises the farsightedness of his corrupt steward .

Some commentators question whether the steward was actually acting dishonestly. Was he actually denying his employer money which he was really owed or was he rather writing off the ‘commission’ which was being usuriously charged, thus inflating the proper amount owed? The Mosaic law forbade taking interest on loans from fellow Jews so one way of getting round this was to overcharge debtors. By reducing the debts to the proper level the steward was correcting an injustice and, at the same time, making these debtors favourably disposed towards him. Whatever the interpretation, the point Jesus is making is the same: the steward acted with shrewdness and intelligence to guarantee his future.

Jesus concludes by pointing out that the worldly are far more astute in providing for their future than are those who are regarded as spiritual, the ‘children of light’. Jesus is in no way condoning the steward’s dishonest and corrupt behaviour. What he does praise is his clear-sighted preparation of his future.

The lesson for us is clear. If a man can do that for his earthly career, what about our future in the life to come? If we want to guarantee our future life with God then we, too, need to take the necessary steps. Those steps are clearly laid out in the Gospel and, in general, they involve a life which is built on truth and integrity, and on love, compassion and justice with regard to the people around us. Our task is to work with God in making his will our own and in building up the Kingdom.

If we do this on a daily basis, then we have nothing to worry about and our future is assured.

Week 31 | Saturday

Philippians 4:10-19; Luke 16:9-15

We conclude our readings from the letter to the Christians at Philippi with a passage where Paul thanks them for the generous help they have given him in his time of need.

As usual, Paul cannot make a simple statement without filling it out with deep theological and spiritual insights. Once again he speaks with a feeling of joy. This time it is because “at last” he has received help from them.

The delay was not due to any negligence on their part but because of a lack of opportunity in getting the help to him. Does this mean that perhaps Paul may indeed at this time have been a prisoner in faraway Rome? But there could also have been difficulties reaching him if he was imprisoned in Ephesus. Apart from Paul’s being in prison, travel to another region or province was a major undertaking in those days. Perhaps, too, a suitable emissary was not available.

In any case, what Paul values most of all is the care and concern that is expressed by their gift.

Once again Paul indicates his total absence of worry about having or not having things. “I have been through my initiation,” he says. Perhaps this is a reference to the ‘mystery’ religions into whose secrets and rituals one had to be initiated. Paul has been initiated into the Way of the Gospel and its message of total dependence and total trust in God.

As a labourer for the Gospel, Paul has experienced times of plenty and times of want. And he has now reached the stage that he accepts whatever comes with equanimity: full stomach or empty stomach, poverty or plenty. This is the wonderful freedom that life in Jesus gives. This is that ‘indifference’ that discerns and submits to God’s loving presence in every experience.

As he says here in a much-quoted phrase: “I can do everything in the One who gives me strength.” This is the source of happiness and contentment: a close union with Jesus the Lord. Union with the living, exalted Christ is the secret of being content and the source of Paul’s abiding strength.

At the same time, he does appreciate the gesture of the Philippians in coming to relieve his hardship and, in a sense, sharing in them. The Philippian church has a special place in Paul’s heart. From the very earliest days when Paul first preached the Gospel among them on his second missionary journey, they helped him out, not once but many times. The gifts sent to Paul through Epaphroditus are only the latest in a long and consistent pattern of generosity. Even when he was in Thessalonica, another Macedonian town, it was the Philippians who helped him out.

In fairness it should be said that Paul generally refused payments from churches he visited, although he made it clear that he would have been entitled to something on the basis of the services he rendered. He was always proud of supporting himself by his own skills as a tentmaker.

However, it is not the monetary value of their gift that Paul most values. Rather it is the investment they are making for themselves in the life that is to come. The “investment value” of the Philippian’s gift is not primarily what Paul received from them, but the “spiritual dividend” they themselves will receive.

And so, right now, Paul has all that he needs and more. Those needs are clearly minimal. He sees the gift of the Philippians, brought to him by their emissary Epaphroditus, like a sacrifice of thanksgiving offered to God, full of sweetness and fragrance. In return, Paul is confident that his God will repay the Philippians’ generosity as generously as only he can by supplying all their real needs through the “glorious riches” that come through Christ Jesus.

Let us today give thanks for all that we have received directly and indirectly from the hands of our loving God. Let us learn to be satisfied in having just our needs taken care of. “The truly rich are those whose needs are the least.” Let us also consider whether there are any people who could be helped by us in any way, whether it is by money or something else.

Luke 16:9-15

Yesterday we saw Jesus give the example of a corrupt but astute manager who took effective steps to guarantee his future employment. Today he goes on to warn us about our own use of material things.

We are to use “dishonest wealth” in such a way that we “make friends for ourselves” (our most important friend being God!) and when it fails us (as it ultimately will) that “a lasting reception” will be ours. We are reminded of how the crafty steward in the parable ensured his future.

In the mind of Luke, the friends we should be making are the poor and needy who will be on our side before God’s judgement seat because we had “invested” our wealth in them. As we read in Matthew: “As often as you did it to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” (Matt 25:40).

Earlier we saw a good example of a man who had made so much money out of his harvest that he sat back to enjoy the rest of his life - which ended that very night. That is not the way to “make friends” with one’s material goods. In one sense there is nothing wrong with having a lot of money. It is how we use it that is the question.

“If you can trust a man in little things, you can also trust him in greater.” In other words, if we can be trusted with the material goods that come into our lives and use them to build the Kingdom of God, to create a more just and equitable society, then we can be trusted with something much greater, to live forever face to face with our God.

“If you cannot be trusted with elusive wealth, who will trust you with that which lasts?” And again, “If you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s money, who will give you what is your own?” And that reminds us that the material goods that come into our lives (no matter how they may have been acquired) do not belong absolutely to us. Everything on this earth belongs to all. We are only the stewards of what has come into our possession and we will be judged on how we make use of it. On our use will depend to a large extent our receiving the one thing that will really become our own, the unending happiness that God wishes us to have in company with him.

That leads obviously to the next warning that we cannot be at the same time give ourselves totally to God and become slaves of money and the material. We saw that in the case of the rich man who wanted to follow Jesus. He was the slave of his possessions and so could not surrender his life to Jesus. Many of us think we can and we try to compromise but, to give ourselves to God completely, we must become free of the lure of money and the acquisition of material things. It does not mean we do not have money or material things but what we do have is ultimately used only for God’s love and service and the love and service of our brothers and sisters.

On hearing all this, the Pharisees, whom Luke calls “avaricious”, mocked Jesus for what they felt was unrealistic idealism. There are many today who would echo their views but those who have taken Jesus’ words to heart know that what he says is true. We have seen that in the lives of people like Mother Teresa and Dorothy Day among others. I believe that Princess Diana, with all her money and fame and luxurious living knew she did not have something precious that Mother Teresa had found - the freedom to give and share her whole self with the destitute.

“What man thinks important, God holds in contempt.” The opposite is also true. On which side do I find myself?

Week 32 | Monday

Titus 1:1-9; Luke 17:1-6

As we come to the end of the liturgical year, this week we dip into four short letters: the Letter to Titus (Mon-Wed), the Letter to Philemon (Thursday), the Second Letter of John (Friday), and the Third Letter of John (Saturday)

The Letters to Titus and Philemon come last in the body of the Pauline Letters, because they are the two shortest. Philemon consists of only one chapter and is more in the nature of a personal note or memo to a friend.

The Letter to Titus is the third of the so-called “Pastoral Letters” because they consist largely of pastoral advice to Paul’s colleagues, Timothy and Titus. They are the only Pauline letters addressed to individuals rather than a church. There is a good deal of dispute as to whether they really were written by Paul because they clearly deal with a period following Paul’s imprisonment in Rome with which the Acts of the Apostles end.

Some hold that Paul was released from that imprisonment and went on another pastoral mission which included Crete, where Titus was left in charge. Others would hold that such a mission is pure speculation made to fit the awkward fact that not Paul but another anonymous writer authored the three Pastoral Letters, which share a common style quite unlike that of letters definitely known to have been written by Paul. This theory would date the letters around the year 100, long after Paul’s death. If Paul did write them, they would belong to a period about 65 AD.

Whatever the truth, Titus was certainly one of Paul’s most important collaborators. Strangely, he is never mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles but his name occurs 13 times in other books of the New Testament. He played a very important role in restoring peace to the church at Corinth where it seems Paul had made himself very unpopular (cf. the reading from 1 Corinthians 4:6-15 of Saturday in the 22nd Week, Year II, where Paul’s problems can be read between the lines).

The letter purports to be from Paul to Titus and in our notes we will comment as if that was actually the case, while keeping in mind that in fact the letter may be from another hand and at a much later date (when Paul was already dead for many years). Whatever the Letter’s real origins, we need to remember that it is now in the canon of Scripture recognised by all Christians and is to be read primarily as the Word of God.

Today’s reading consists of the opening address of the letter and then sets the qualifications for the appointment of presbyters/elders and bishops/episkopoi to lead the communities.

Paul begins by calling himself the “servant of God”. Only here does he use this term; in other letters he refers to himself as the “servant of Christ”. James, in his letter, uses both terms of himself. And he is an “apostle”, one of those specially and personally commissioned by Christ himself, even if he is not one of the Twelve and was “born out of time” into the Christian faith.

He describes his mission as being to lead those chosen by God (through baptism) to faith and a knowledge of the truth that brings one to “true religion”, that is, a true relationship with God, coupled with the hope of eventually enjoying that life without end which God promises to his people.

He speaks of “God our Saviour”, one of three times in this Letter when the Father is called “Saviour”. Jesus will also be referred to as “Saviour” three times.

Unlike the Cretans, known for their immorality (Titus is in Crete), God does not lie. In Christ, he has revealed his plans and it is Paul’s mandate to make them widely known.

He then greets the addressee of the letter, Titus, wishing him the traditional “grace and peace” from God the Father and Jesus Christ the Saviour. Titus is called a “true child of mine” for it was through Paul’s ministry that Titus was converted to Christianity, “the faith that we share”. In the Letter to Philemon (to be read on Thursday), Onesimus is also called a son by Paul.

As the body of the letter begins, Paul gives Titus his instructions.

By saying that he had left Titus behind in Crete, Paul seems to imply that they had both been there together, although the Acts of the Apostles does not record any such visit by Paul, except as a stop off point on his way to Rome as a prisoner. It is an open question whether Paul did go there after being released in Rome or whether it is simply an invention of the writer. In leaving Titus in Crete, Paul was simply following his usual custom of leaving someone in charge of a church he had evangelised. He saw himself as a “sower” of the seed, leaving it to others to look after the growing crop and bring in the “harvest”.

Titus’ main mission was to appoint elders in every town where there was a Christian community. There are two Greek words used for “elders” at this stage in the Church’s development: presbyteros, which means an “elder” and episcopos, which literally means an “overseer”. Later, these words gave us “priest” and “bishop” in the English language. However, at this stage the words could be applied to the same person and referred simply to those who were given the role of leadership in the local church. There could also be several elders in one community. And we are not yet into the distinction between “clergy” and “laity”. The term “priest” would take on meanings it certainly did not have at this time (see Note * below)

The connotation of “elder” is that of an older, mature person who wins the respect of the community, while “overseer” looks more to the authority and responsibility that the person has over the community. It is quite certain that Christian presbyteroi or episkopoi were not merely concerned with the practical side of organising things; they had to teach and govern. They were appointed by the apostles or their representatives by the imposition of hands; their powers derived from God, and were charismatic.

Elsewhere we will see reference to “deacons” (diakonos), which points to a person in a serving capacity and which was at first applied to those who gave practical assistance to the elder.

Paul then gives a list of qualifications expected of an elder, or church leader:

a man of irreproachable character

married only once

his children are Christians and well behaved and not likely to be a source of scandal in the community

never arrogant or hot-tempered

not a drinker or a violent person

not concerned with making money (especially out of his position)

someone who is hospitable and ordered to all that is good

sensible, moral, devout and disciplined

having a clear understanding of the central and unchanging core of the Christian message, which will enable him both to give sound and solid teaching and refute those who question it.

A few comments on the above qualifications:

Clearly the elder is seen as a man and not a woman. This was probably the only possibility in the culture of the time. Whether it is an argument against women presbyterai in our Church today is an acute issue right now.

A husband of one wife seems to exclude any form of polygamy or anything except a purely monogamous relationship. It does not necessarily exclude a bachelor or a widower nor remarriage by an elder whose first wife had died (although Paul told the Corinthians that it is more desirable not to marry again). Since elders, by definition, were chosen from among the older men of the congregation, Paul assumed they would already be married and have children. The most likely meaning is simply that a faithful monogamous married life must be maintained.

The requirement that the children (and presumably the wife) be also Christian was most likely so that the whole family would give witness to the Gospel. What kind of a Christian leader cannot lead his own family members to Christ? 

Self-disciplined: possessing the inner strength to control one’s desires and actions. Given that the people of Crete had a notorious reputation for all that was gross and immoral, the elder had to give an outstanding example of a person free from such behaviour. Paul refers to it five times in two chapters.

The emphasis on sound doctrine is a central theme of all the Pastoral Letters and reflects concerns about various erratic teachings, especially forms of Gnosticism, which were current in the post-Pauline period. The word “sound” occurs eight times in these letters but is never used in any of the other Pauline letters.

*In Greek and Latin, the words for ‘priest’ were hiereus and sacerdos respectively. These words explicitly indicate a ritualistic, sacrificial priesthood as found in the Jewish priesthood of the Old Testament and in the priests found in the pagan temples and places of religious worship in Greece and Rome. In the early New Testament this word was applied only to Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest and our only Priest, all other priesthoods having been abolished. This is put most clearly in the Letter to the Hebrews. How presbyter became hiereus is a question we cannot go into here. With the word hiereus comes both the concept and the reality of ‘hier-archy’, rule by priests.

Luke 17:1-6

We move on to chapter 17 of Luke and today we have three separate sayings of Jesus which we find in different contexts of Matthew’s gospel. The first is on the inevitability of scandals. Scandals are those actions or words which, literally, cause people to trip up and fall. Here they refer to words or actions which become obstacles preventing or making it more difficult for people to believe in and accept Christ and the Gospel.

These things are inevitable, Jesus says, but it is tragic for those who are responsible. It is a terrible thing to come between a person and the call of Christ, to be the effective agent for blocking a person coming to know and love Christ and his Way. It would be better for the scandal-causer to be thrown into the sea with a millstone round his neck. The “little ones” can refer either to those who are young and innocent or those who are frail in their Christian faith.

In recent years our newspapers have reported many “scandals” on the part of Catholic leaders - bishops, priests, brothers and sisters. It is difficult to say how many people’s faith was weakened by these events but it is likely that they were enough to make some less committed people experience a sense of disillusionment so that they abandoned the Church.

In many cases, there was probably no scandal in the strict sense but simply failings due to human frailty. In other cases, especially where the young or the innocent were abused or led astray, real scandal and prolonged harm was certainly present.

Scandal in the Gospel sense and in the tabloid sense are not quite the same and we should be careful to distinguish them. Jesus himself caused “scandal” among some of the religious leaders because he failed to observe certain rituals. This is known as “pharisaical” scandal or hypocritical scandal. We Catholics can certainly be guilty of this kind of false scandal and certainly the media at times, for purposes of sensationalism, can blow up certain trivial matters in a particularly obnoxious “holier-than-thou” approach.

But it is not only people in public life who cause scandal. Parents, by their ambivalent, two-standard behaviour, can tell their children to behave in one way while they themselves act in a totally other way. Catholic parents and others in charge of the guidance of children (such as teachers) need to be particularly careful of being stumbling blocks to their children’s faith.

The second saying is about forgiveness and reconciliation and it is not unconnected with the question of scandal above. If a brother (or a sister), that is, a fellow-Christian is clearly in the wrong, he should be corrected. And, if he clearly repents, then he is to be forgiven. Even if he commits the same offence any number of times and each time expresses sincere sorrow, he is to be forgiven.

This is not to say that a person can keep doing wrong and expect forgiveness simply by saying he is sorry. Some kind of controlling action may have to be taken. This is especially the case where the person is not in control of himself, which could be the case with someone who is an alcoholic, a drug addict, a sex abuser or the victim of some other compulsive behaviour. But even here, punishment alone cannot be a satisfactory solution but every effort must be made to heal and rehabilitate.

As Christians, the whole thrust of our actions is for reconciliation and not judgement and condemnation. We need to remember the teaching about God’s love for the sinner in the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son (Luke chap. 15).

The third saying is about faith, that is, deep trust in God. The apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith. This may be seen in the context of the warning about scandal and the requirement to forgive indefinitely. He told them that, if they had faith the size of a tiny mustard seed, they could order a sycamore tree to be uprooted and transplanted in the sea and it would happen.

Perhaps an area where we need a strong trust is in trying to rehabilitate both the givers and the victims of scandal and certainly we need faith if we are to be able sincerely to forgive again and again those who have hurt us or others. But true forgiveness is not the simple writing off of a wrongdoing but taking the necessary steps to restore a status quo of harmony and peace and mutual love and respect. It can take a long time.

Week 32 | Tuesday

Titus 2:1-8,11-14; Luke 17:7-10

Today the Letter continues by giving some moral instructions to the community at large. It also makes very clear and challenging demands on Titus himself.

With the many false teachers in mind, Titus is told that he in particular is to spell out the kind of behaviour that follows from the true teaching of the Gospel and which is expected of all. “It is for you”: the ‘you’ is emphatic and contrasts the teaching of Titus with that of the false and Gnostic teachers previously denounced.

Instructions are now given on the kind of behaviour that is expected of all, regardless of age, gender or status in the community.

Older men in the community, by virtue of their seniority and experience of life, were expected to give examples of reserve, dignity and balanced moderation in their consistent living out of the Gospel. This was to be in contrast to many Cretans, earlier described as “liars, vicious beasts and lazy gluttons”.

The same standards were expected of older women in the Christian community, where it is clear that they had a better status than their non-Christian counterparts. They are not to be spreading malicious gossip or given to excessive drinking - suggesting that such behaviour was characteristic of Cretan women.

On the contrary, they are to give an example to younger women on how to love their husbands and their children, how to be sensible and sexually modest, how to look after the home, be kind and gentle and - in the mode of the times - “do as their husbands tell them”. (Although this last injunction should be balanced by what the Letter to the Ephesians (5:25) says are the duties of the husband towards his wife - though different Greek words for “love” are used in the two passages: philia, in Titus and agape, in Ephesians.)

And - it is important to remember this - all this is part of living the Gospel message in a very practical way. This is how the married woman gives witness to the message of the Gospel. By failing to live in this way, the effectiveness of the Gospel can be diminished.

Titus himself then is urged especially to give an example to younger men. The call to be “moderate” or “sensible” was very much in the Greek tradition but it is something frequently mentioned in these letters. It is also clear that young men then were not very different to those in every other age, including our own. “Moderation” is not usually one of their characteristics.

Titus is called on to be an example of integrity and consistency in his teaching and his lifestyle so that there can never be any serious criticism levelled at him. Perhaps Titus was still a young man and not yet well respected by the Cretan churches. The demands on a leader are all-inclusive, involving not only his word but also his lifestyle. So the Letter of James tells us: “Not many of you should become teachers for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1) And as Eliza Doolittle tells Professor Higgins: “Don’t talk of love; show me!”

Whether we like it or not, the message is often identified with the messenger. So where Titus is seen to be consistently faithful, when his behaviour matches his word, his opponents will have nothing to throw against him.

Of course, in practice, we do have to distinguish between the message and the messenger. The Church or any member of it cannot and should not be identified with Christianity itself, which is a vision of life, an ideal to be aimed at. The message is sublime but it is carried in very brittle and very porous vessels and it is important to remember that.

At this point, two verses which deal with slaves are omitted, presumably on the assumption that they are no longer relevant. We might reflect, however, on how many people in our societies are treated virtually as slaves e.g. exploited migrant workers, young girls abducted for the sex industry, just to mention two examples.

The passage concludes with some general remarks about the Christian faith. Through Christ, God’s gratuitous love for peoples everywhere (and not just for an elite group) has been made known to us. Through this message we know that this message must influence the way we live. It tells us what we need to do and the kind of people we need to become so that we can one day be forever united with our God. Everything that does not point us in that direction should be removed from our lives. Orthodoxy must be accompanied by orthopraxis.

That calls for certain standards of behaviour and acting as we prepare for the day when we come face to face with “our great God and (our) Saviour Jesus Christ”, who has made it all possible for us. (This phrase - without the “our” - is often referred to by the Fathers of the Church to affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ. Omitting the “our” is thought to be the more accurate reading of the original text.)

It was the sacrifice of his own life on the cross which brought about our becoming a truly free people, a people with “no ambition except to do good”. And that is a definition of freedom: the ability in every situation to do what is good.

Preaching alone will not bring about change in our communities. It must be followed up by individuals, families and groups consciously trying to implement the message that comes to us in the Gospel. And we can only do that really as a mutually supportive community. It is not something that can be done left entirely to our own devices. The “Church” is not some amorphous entity which we can praise or blame at will; it consists of all of us - individuals, families and groups. If the Church is at fault, it means that the fault lies in ourselves and that is where it is to be tackled.

Luke 17:7-10

Another warning from Luke today (and one which is only found in this gospel) about complacency. As we read this parable we must be careful – as with many of the others – not to confuse matters by dragging in issues which are anachronistic.

Jesus asks if we had a slave who had spent the day working in the fields, would we invite him to sit down, have his supper and take a good rest? Or would we not rather tell him first to prepare his master’s supper and, after the master had eaten his fill, only then would the slave be able to eat and rest? Would we even express gratitude to a servant who was only doing what was expected of him?

Here, let us forget current ideas about union rules and democracy and what have you! No one in those times, either an employer or a slave, would have thought of questioning what Jesus is saying. At the same time, we might remember Jesus saying that watchful servants will be welcomed by their master who will make them sit down and will wait personally on them (Luke 12:37) and that Jesus washed his disciples’ feet as an example of service.

What we are dealing with here is our relationship with God. The point Jesus is making is that God need never be grateful to us for anything we do for him. No matter how much we do for him, we can never put him in our debt. Everything we give to God (or to God through others) is simply giving back to him a small portion of what he has already given us. It is well said in Preface IV for Masses on Weekdays: “You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness, but makes us grow in your grace.”

God can never be in our debt. He can never be under any obligation to us. Perhaps that is what some of the Pharisees thought. They felt that, because they kept the Law perfectly, God owed them salvation. We see that in the scene of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the Temple, where the Pharisee’s prayer gives the impression that God should be deeply grateful, among so many negligent people, to have such a good person as him.

We can do the same thing ourselves when, for instance, we think that by saying certain prayers or performing certain acts (novenas, indulgences, pilgrimages, etc) God should jump to attention and do what we are telling him to do, to give us what we are asking for.

All our living out of the Gospel is not a compliment paid to God. On the contrary, we can never be grateful enough to him for showing us the way to truth, love, freedom and happiness which Jesus taught us and for giving us the grace to walk his Way. With God, all our giving is only a partial giving back.

Week 32 | Wednesday

Titus 3:1-7; Luke 17:11-19

Our third and last reading from the Letter to Titus and it consists of some general instruction for church members. The living of a full Christian life touches not only on our direct relations with God but also permeates even the smallest actions of our day and the role we play in the everyday world. It is not right for us to make a division between what is ‘religious’ and what is ‘secular’ in our lives. Christianity, as a vision of life, touches everything. We live, as Teilhard de Chardin put it, in a milieu divin: everything around us is touched by God.

So the Letter today urges the Christian community to obey government officials and representatives.

As “citizens of heaven” some of the early Christians had problems about this and it seems to be reflected in the scene where Jesus is asked whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not. The answer is ‘Yes’ to both: give to God what belongs to God and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (the ruling authorities). Although believers are indeed “citizens of heaven” (Phil 3:20), they should also submit themselves to the moral and legitimate demands of an earthly government and co-operate actively in promoting the well-being of the community.

Of course, everything belongs to God and that is the bottom line. But we also love and serve God when we work with conscientious people in promoting the overall wellbeing of the community (including the responsible paying of taxes). In fact, we have a Christian duty to do so. For Christians to abdicate their responsibilities to the wider community and lock themselves into an isolated ghetto would not be consistent with the love we are asked to have for all.

At the same time, we need to adopt what Cardinal Jaime Sin of Manila once described as “critical cooperation” with any government or its officials. All forms of injustice and corrupt use of power must be resisted and denounced. Obedience here would be tantamount to cooperation. As they say, for evil to prevail all that is needed is that good people remain silent.

Some of the other pieces of advice are fairly general:

ready to do good at every opportunity

not to go around saying slanderous things (even if true) about other people or picking quarrels with them but on the contrary to practise courtesy and politeness not just to people we know and like but “to all kinds of people”. This is “Love your neighbour” being carried out in practice and the advice is as relevant as it ever was. To be honest, sometimes we are not very different from non-Christians in this area.

The Christians are reminded that there was a time, before they became Christian, when their own behaviour left much to be desired, when they shared many of the vices of their fellow-Cretans: ignorance, disobedience, slaves to all kinds of passions and luxuries. At that time, they still lived in an atmosphere of wickedness and hostility, full of hate for others and quite obnoxious themselves.

Perhaps we could look into our own lives and see if any of these things are in ourselves:

Ignorance of the content and meaning of our Christian faith. How many Christians, especially Catholics, have very little familiarity with the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments? How many could, if asked by a non-Christian, give a coherent and persuasive account of what Christianity really is?

Disobedience, in the sense of lacking in real respect for authority, both in civil and church society. Obedience does not mean subservience; it means working together with civil and religious leaders for the wellbeing of all. And, as we mentioned, that working together may mean at times challenging and calling in question - but not copping out.

Passions and luxuries: we live today in a very materialist, consumerist and hedonistic society. It has become a kind of fashion to live in this way. But, as we see again and again, pleasure is not a real source of happiness, often quite the contrary. As Christians we need to be able to show a viable alternative where happiness is to be found in other ways of living.

Hating and hateful: a lot of people’s lives are consumed by hatred, resentment, anger and even violence towards others. Such people are not attractive and can only really find company in others equally full of hate and rancour. At the bottom of such feelings there is fear. In the New Testament, the opposite of love is not hatred, but fear. And true love casts out fear; they are incompatible.

Let us then try to be more loving people, let God’s love work in us and through us and let the deep-down fear gradually seep away.

In the second half of the reading, we are reminded that all that God has done for us in Jesus Christ was in no way a kind of reward for our faithfulness to him. We have been saved and liberated for no other reason than the deep compassion that God had for us when still immersed in our sin. It came from the “kindness and love of God our saviour” for people everywhere. The word “love” here translates the Greek philanthropia, that is, love for all mankind.

We were washed clean by the waters of baptism and made a new person in the power of God’s Spirit working in and through us, “the Holy Spirit which he so generously poured over us through Jesus Christ our Saviour”. We have been made right with God by a purely gratuitous display of his love; we have now become the Father’s heirs, sharing with Jesus our Brother and Lord life without end.

To remain in that state it is up to us to remain totally open to God’s love and allow him to transform us and become daily more like him in all our words, actions and relationships.

Luke 17:11-19

This story of Jesus’ compassion is peculiar to Luke.

We are told that Jesus was travelling on the borders of Galilee, the northern province of Palestine, and Samaria, which lies between Galilee and the southern province of Judea. Jesus is making for the Jordan valley on his way south to Jericho, one of his last stops before reaching his final destination in Jerusalem.

Just as he entered a village he was met by ten lepers (it does not specify whether they were men or women). As lepers they were not allowed to come in close proximity with other people because it was (rightly) known that the condition could be transmitted to others by physical contact, although it needed to be fairly prolonged contact. We remember how the famous Fr Damien, the Apostle to the Lepers, eventually contracted the disease through his ministering to a colony of lepers in Hawaii.

Because of their dreaded disease, such people were literally outcasts condemned to live their lives on the fringes of society. The tragedy is that, given the limited medical knowledge of the times, many such people were almost certainly not suffering from leprosy at all but from some other non-contagious but perhaps chronic skin disease.

So, calling Jesus from a safe distance, they cried out: “Jesus, Master, have compassion on us!”

Jesus simply told them to go and show themselves to the priests. And, while they were on their way, they were all cured. Presumably they continued on their way to see the priests who would give them an official declaration of being “clean” so that they could once again legitimately return to life in society. A major element of their healing was their re-integration into society.

Just one of the cured lepers then came back to Jesus “praising God in a loud voice” and in deep gratitude fell at the feet of Jesus.

“This man was a Samaritan.” The words are loaded with meaning. For it is presumed that the rest were Jews. In the first place, Jews and Samaritans could not stand each other and the Jews tended to look down on the Samaritans as ungodly and unclean. But, in the misfortune of their leprosy, these Jews and Samaritans, rejected by both their own peoples, found common support in each other’s company.

But, now that they are cured, only one of them comes to say thanks and he is still – in the eyes of the Jews – an outcast.

Jesus, looking around at the Jews in his company, expresses surprise that ten were made clean but only one came back to give thanks and he was a despised foreigner. This unexpected action is also reflected in another of Luke’s stories, which we reflected on earlier, that of the so-called “good Samaritan”. Here is another good Samaritan. (And there is a third, of course – the woman who features prominently in John’s gospel).

To the man Jesus says, “Stand up and go your way; your faith has made you whole again.” That “stand up” or “rise up”, which Jesus often uses with those he heals, has echoes of resurrection and entry into new life, a life of wholeness brought about by the man’s trust in Jesus and his acknowledgment of the source of his healing.

In the context of Luke’s gospel, the story prepares us for developments in the growth of the early Church, described in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles. For, as the early Christians (all Jews) flee from persecution in Jerusalem, the people of Samaria are among the first to accept Jesus as Lord and to become followers of the Gospel, while many of the Jews in Jerusalem remain closed to Jesus’ message and call.

We, too, must never give in to a temptation to exclude any people as possible followers of Christ. We must be ready to reach out to all, even the most unlikely. None must be treated as outsiders or untouchables, even those who show themselves extremely hostile to the Gospel.

And while there may not be any real lepers in our own society, today is an occasion for us to reflect on who could be regarded as lepers, outsiders, outcasts, and untouchables among us at the present time. And to ask whether I personally treat any person as an outsider in my home, in my work, in other places where I meet people. Such exclusion is totally contrary to what we celebrate in the Eucharist.

Week 32 | Thursday

Philemon 7-20; Luke 17:20-25

Today we begin reading from the three shortest “books” of the New Testament. Today it is a reading from Paul’s Letter to Philemon. The whole “book” consists of just one chapter and is, in the strict sense, a letter from one friend to another. Paul even claims to have written it in his own hand; most of his longer letters were dictated to secretaries, or even partly written by them following Paul’s instructions.

The letter was written about the same time as Colossians and Ephesians. Paul is in prison but where is not quite certain. It is felt that Rome was too far away for him to have been visited by the slave, Onesimus. One possibility is Ephesus where Paul seems to have been imprisoned for a while and which was not too far from Colosse, where Philemon lived.

The situation is that a slave, Onesimus, seems to have run away from his master, Philemon, and found shelter with Paul. There is a suggestion that Onesimus may have run away because he had stolen from his master. In which case, Philemon - understandably - may not have been very well disposed to Onesimus. However, during his time with Paul, Onesimus became a Christian. Philemon was also a convert of Paul’s so he felt a special affinity for these two men and was anxious for reconciliation between them as brothers in Christ.

The letter is written in very tactful language (by one not particularly known for his gift of diplomacy) as if Paul is not at all sure of the outcome.

Today’s passage begins with outright praise for Philemon himself. Paul is delighted to hear of Philemon’s love which has put “new heart” into the “saints”, the Christians of his church. It seems as if Philemon is a church leader and that, of course, means that higher standards are expected of him e.g. in dealing with a runaway slave.

Paul continues by appealing to Philemon’s love rather than his duty (which might be to punish the errant slave). He further appeals as an “old man” languishing in prison for his Christian faith.

He calls Onesimus “a child of mine, whose father I became”, a way of indicating that the slave had been converted to Christianity. Paul was now his “father in Christ”. In Paul’s eyes, this changed the status of Onesimus with respect to his master, also a Christian and also a “child” of Paul’s.

He suggests that Onesimus - no doubt as a result of the formation that Paul has given him - has changed. “He was of no use to you before but he will be useful to you now.” This is a play on the Onesimus’ name which means ‘useful’.

Although he would like to have kept Onesimus with him, (“He could have been a substitute for you” - how diplomatic Paul is!) he wants to send him back to Philemon. Clearly, he is not altogether sure of Philemon’s reaction and that is why he is writing this letter first. He does not want to force Philemon’s hand; he would prefer that Philemon himself take the initiative in inviting back his slave, now that he knows where he is.

And Paul is sending back Onesimus now not just as a slave but as someone who is a brother in Christ both to Paul and Philemon. And the implication is not just that Onesimus is now a baptised Christian but that he has changed as a person.

So Paul begs Philemon to take Onesimus back and, if there is any talk of restitution for stolen property, Paul will take care of it himself. The guarantee is the letter written in his own handwriting. And, because the gift of faith had come to Philemon through Paul, Philemon is in a sense indebted to Paul. He can pay part of that debt by taking Onesimus back.

We do not know, of course, what happened as a result of this letter. But it is a good example of Christian forgiveness and reconciliation. And, in a world where slavery and its resultant inequality was never questioned, it shows how Christian love must eventually lead to people being treated on exactly the same level where human dignity and worth are concerned. It was already pointing the way to the abolition of slavery, a practice which would continue for many centuries to come.

And that is why this informal letter of one friend to another finds its place in our Bible, as the Word of God and giving an example for all of us to follow.

It is often difficult for us to trust a person who has wronged us in some way. It is often difficult to accept that people can change radically. We see this in our attitudes to people who have been in prison. There was great disquiet some time ago in the US when a woman on death row, who had clearly become a totally rehabilitated person and a sincere convert to religious faith, was nevertheless sent to the electric chair. Our society tends to want to exact its “pound of flesh”, to want to punish rather than to reform or rehabilitate.

Jesus was not like that. He was the one who consistently ate and drank with sinners and social outcasts. As a Church, is that accusation thrown at us very often?

Luke 17:20-25

Jesus was asked by some Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come.

In their mind, it was a definitive time that would be suddenly realised by the arrival of a triumphant Messiah-King. Jesus says it is not going to be like that at all. The Kingdom cannot be found by looking around for telltale signs so that you can say it is ‘here’ or ‘there’.

No, says Jesus, “the reign of God is already in your midst”. In other words, it is right in front of them. It is first of all in the very person of Jesus, who is the embodiment of the God’s Reign. He is the Messiah-King. He is the living incarnation of God’s loving power revealed in his authoritative teaching, in his many healings of the sick, in his freeing of those from the power of evil spirits and in his compassion for the sinner and the outcast. All are clear evidence of the reign of God “in their midst”.

In every age, there are people who get worked up about the “final coming of Christ”. The recent end of the millennium was such a time. But, instead of focusing on a date in the calendar we should be focusing on the realities of our everyday lives where, to those with eyes to see, the reign of God can easily be discerned working in other people’s lives and in our own. Wherever people are reflecting in their lives the vision of life, the values that Jesus revealed to us, the Kingdom is there. And such people are not confined to the Church. They can be and are found everywhere.

Jesus then turns to his disciples telling them they will long to see the “one day of the Son of Man” but will not see it. In the very early Church many were convinced that Jesus would make his final coming in their own lifetime. It is likely that, from time to time, certain events were interpreted as signs of that final coming. People were saying that “he is to found in this place or that”. But by the time Luke’s gospel was written most of that first generation of Christians had died and there was still no sign of Jesus’ coming. The ‘days’ following his expected coming may have all the more been longed for during times of severe persecution when they looked for relief and help from their pain. An anxiety reflected in the story of the disciples’ trying to wake a sleeping Jesus while their boat is threatened by mountainous seas (Mark 4:35-41).

Jesus says that, when his day does come, it will “be like the lightning that flashes from one end of the sky to the other”. It will be both sudden and everywhere. In the meantime, Jesus “must suffer much and be rejected by the present age”. Words which clearly refer to his own suffering and death but which can also be applied to the whole Risen Christ, including the Church, his risen Body, down to our own age.

So, on the one hand, the reign of God is already here among us and we need look no further than the daily experiences of our own lives to know and experience the power and presence of Jesus. On the other hand, the time of that final coming which will “wipe every tear from our eyes” and be the end of all suffering and rejection is not for us to decide – nor to be anxious about.

Week 32 | Friday

2 John 4-9; Luke 17:26-37

The three Letters of John seem to have been all written about the same time, by the same person and probably from Ephesus. The dates suggested vary from 85-100 AD.

Today we have a reading of just six verses from the Second Letter, which is actually the shortest “book” in the whole of the New Testament, not even taking up one page in most Bibles.

The author calls himself “the Elder” which indicates a level of authority over the community to which he is writing. Whether he is to be identified with John the Apostle is not certain but not very likely.

The Second Letter was written to a church which was under the jurisdiction of the Elder and referred to in the reading as “dear Lady”, in reply to people who were publicly denying the truth of the Incarnation, that Jesus was truly God and Man. In the opening words of the Letter she is called “Chosen” or “Elect” Lady.

Today’s reading is in two parts.

In the first part, the author congratulates the church for following the true teaching, “the life of truth as we were commanded by the Father”. And he is writing to them not with a new commandment but with one they have had since the beginning, that is, since the time of their conversion - namely, that they should love one another. Loving God and loving the neighbour was not a new commandment. In the Gospel they are given as the most important of Jewish laws, quoting from Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18. But, at the Last Supper, Jesus gave a “new” commandment which was to “love one another as I have loved you”. Jesus will spell that out by saying that the greatest love a person can give is to give one’s life for one’s friends. Jesus called his disciples his “friends” and he gave his life for them. That is now to be the paradigm for our relationship with those around us.

In this Letter this commandment is simply being re-emphasised. To love, says the Elder, is to live according to Jesus’ commandments, which can all be summed up in the one commandment: “to live a life of love”.

Love, however, should not blind them to the truth. And that brings us to the second part of the reading. The author warns his church about those who are denying that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh”. In other words, they are denying the true humanity of Jesus. The Gnostics taught that the Son of God did not become a human being but that he temporarily came down upon the man Jesus between his baptism and his crucifixion.

They held this belief under the conviction that all material things were evil and the good person should withdraw as far as possible from the material world. In this situation, God could not have taken on a material body. He only had the temporary appearance of being linked to a human.

The teachers of this doctrine are called here the “Antichrist” because they deny the very essence of what we believe Jesus Christ to be. The Christians are warned that to follow this teaching could jeopardise their faith and their ultimate salvation.

John assumed his readers knew that a great enemy of God and his people was expected to appear before Christ’s final return. That person is called “Antichrist”, the “Man of Lawlessness” and (in Revelation 13:1-10) “the Beast”. But prior to him, there will be many other antichrists. In the Letters of John they have the following characteristics: 1, They deny the incarnation and that Jesus is the divine Christ; 2, they deny the Father; 3, they do not have the Father; 4, they are liars and deceivers; 5, they are many; 6, in John’s day they left the church because they had nothing in common with believers. The ‘antichrists’ referred to in John’s letter were the early Gnostics.

The Elder warns that those who do not keep to the Church’s teaching about Christ but go beyond it, as the Gnostics claimed to do, cannot be with God. They went beyond the apostolic teaching by indulging in pure speculation and presenting that as the teaching and belief of the Church.

However, says the Elder, only those who remain faithful to the original teaching are in union with both the Father and the Son. Because, as Jesus had said, “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:10).

The passage highlights two contrasting attitudes we need to have as Christians.

On the one hand, our lives are to be governed entirely by the law of love, loving each other to the same degree that Christ has loved and continues to love us. It must be the touchstone of all our living.

But loving does not mean turning a blind eye to what is against the true or the good. It does not mean absolute tolerance for any idea or any action. We do not love people by turning a blind eye to the harm they may do to themselves or others by ideas they hold or the behaviour they indulge in.

In another part of this letter, the Christians are told to avoid giving to false teachers the hospitality traditionally extended to travelling teachers. The Gospel speaks of expelling people from the community when their behaviour is quite out of keeping with the standards that the Church wishes to maintain to be a credible witness to the Gospel. Yet, love remains the criterion. Expulsion lasts only as long as there has been no repentance or reconciliation.

The Church, like its Master, wishes that people be saved and not condemned.

Luke 17:26-37

Jesus is coming to the end of his public life. His passion and death is going to be a traumatic experience for his followers, which will take them by surprise and fill them with shock and alarm.

Later still but before Luke had put his gospel together, a cataclysm had overtaken Jerusalem when the city was laid siege to and utterly destroyed and the magnificent Temple with it. The disaster is commemorated in the arch in Rome erected to honour the Emperor Titus’ victory where one can see bas reliefs of the treasures of the Temple being carried off as loot.

Last of all, there is the end of all things when our world will be no more. The what or the how of that end is something we know nothing about.

In a sense, all three endings are included in Jesus’ warning today. His main lesson is for us to be ready and not to think that we can postpone our preparations. When the end strikes it will be already too late.

Jesus gives the examples of the time of the Flood when people ate and drank right up to the moment of disaster. (And we know from our newspapers how unprepared people can be when sudden floods and other sudden disasters strike.) Similarly in the days of Lot, people were leading their ordinary lives when fire and brimstone (was it an earthquake?) rained down on the wicked city of Sodom. Only Lot and his family, who had been previously warned, escaped. Almost every day we read in our papers of similar cataclysms.

When the “day of the Son of Man is revealed”, that is, when he comes at the end of time, it will be too late to take emergency measures. One will either be ready or not. If one is resting on the roof of one’s house (as was common at that time), don’t think of going down to save something. One person will be taken away and a companion left behind. The words seem to echo what happened at the fall of Jerusalem and are similar to all natural disasters where some are swept away and those next to them survive. In the context, the implication is that one goes to God and one does not.

These texts are not intended to fill us with fear and foreboding of a capricious God. They are timely advice not to be caught napping but to remain alert to meet the Lord. It is good advice not just for the end of our lives but for every day and every moment of every day. If I am always ready now, I will be ready then.

By living continuously and consciously in the presence of God, in that “divine milieu” of the Kingdom mentioned above, in the ever-present NOW, we are not going to be caught by surprise. Far from being afraid, we will look forward to the day with anticipation, leaving totally in God’s hands the hour of his call. In practice, too, that final call will not coincide with the end of our planet but with the moment when our individual life on this earth will come to its end. Of the inevitability of that end there is no doubt.

Week 32 | Saturday

3 John 5-8; Luke 17:18:1-8

Like yesterday’s reading, today’s which is from the Third Letter of John, is very short and is a genuine letter. It is addressed to a Christian called Gaius, about whom we know nothing, and again the author is simply identified as “the Elder” or “Presbyter” (presbyteros).

Unlike Letters 1 and 2, Letter 3 does not touch on the major issues of love and right teaching but deals primarily with the question of hospitality shown to travelling preachers.

In Letter 2 the Christians in the church to whom the letter was written were urged not to give hospitality to people who were preaching unacceptable doctrines about Christ.

In this letter the opposite problem seems to exist. A person called Diotrephes, who refuses to accept the authority of the Elder, seems to be refusing hospitality to teachers sent into his territory. He even excommunicated those who gave such hospitality.

In contrast, the letter praises Gaius for the hospitality that he has been giving to “brothers”, travelling preachers, who were sometimes complete strangers and were a feature of the Church at this time. As most local churches were small and isolated, it was necessary for them to be visited by competent people sent by the apostles to bring them up to an acceptable understanding of the Christian life.

Local churches were expected to provide hospitality and support to such visiting missionaries. Paul generally did not avail of material help because he preferred to support himself but he did emphasise that he had a right to such support. But he would certainly have availed of accommodation afforded to him. Jesus speaks about this also in his discourse to his disciples going out on mission (Matt 10:5-15).

This, of course, is completely in harmony with Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel. The final judgement will be made on the basis of how we treated strangers, especially those in need or the marginalised. In our crime-ridden cities of the “developed” West, the keeping of this commandment becomes ever more of a challenge. But it must not be set aside.

Gaius’ behaviour is a model of Christian charity and he is further urged even to give them the help they need to get to their next destination. The preachers deserve this hospitality because they do so purely for the sake of the name, that is, the name of Jesus and his Gospel, and without any remuneration. They depend entirely for their support from the Christian communities they come to help and serve. They get help from no one else. By offering them hospitality the community is making its contribution to their work of spreading the Gospel message.

In these times, too, we are expected to help support those who give themselves full-time to the work of the Gospel. And, in most places, people are indeed very generous in supporting their clergy and religious. With the increase of more and more lay people devoting themselves full-time to evangelising and voluntary work with the Church, they too deserve from us the basic support they need in terms of shelter, food and other necessities.

As mentioned above, hospitality, which is still an essential practice in some parts of the world, has become a real problem in more developed societies. It is regarded as foolish and naive to trust the stranger. As a result, our homes are heavily secured with locks and alarms and we are slow to open the door to anyone except those personally known to us.

We offload the responsibility of taking care of the poor, the homeless and the victims of addiction to social welfare bodies. We are willing to help by giving money but not to giving our Christian love by reaching out to them on a person-to-person basis. Sometimes we may even avoid contact with a family member who has fallen between the cracks. The feared criticism of strangers can make us strangers even to our own flesh and blood.

Luke 18:1-8

One of the attributes attributed to Luke is that his is a “Gospel of Prayer”. We see Jesus praying in this gospel more than in the others and he gives more teaching about prayer.

Today Jesus tells a parable urging perseverance. “He told his disciples a parable about the necessity for them to pray always without becoming weary.” This is very much a theme in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom 1:10; 12:12; Eph 6:18; Col 1:3; 1 Thess 5:17; 2 Thess 1:11, etc., and 2 Cor 4:1,16; Gal 6:9; Eph 3:13; 2 Thess 3:13).

The parable features a totally corrupt judge, who fears neither God nor man. It also features a widow, probably the most powerless, the most pitiful and least pitied of people in the society of those days. She has lost her husband, re-marriage is out of the question, she has lost the support of her own family and her husband’s family, and there is nothing comparable to social welfare for her to lean on.

As far as a corrupt judge is concerned, she can be ignored. She has neither power nor money (for bribing). But this widow is different. She is persistent and will not give up. Eventually, the judge, for his sheer peace of mind, settles in her favour.

If, Jesus concludes, a corrupt and ruthless judge can be moved by a helpless widow, what kind of response can we expect when we, his people, call out in our helplessness to our loving and compassionate God? “I tell you, he will give them swift justice.” That is, he will give them what is rightfully due to them.

But, says Jesus in a challenge which should make us sit up and take notice, “When the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth?” Times of persecution are on the way – they have already begun as this gospel is written – and some will give up under pressure. They will not persevere in keeping close contact with God in prayer, finding him and his peace in the midst of their sufferings.

It is easy to pray when things are going well. It is often in times of pressure that we, too, give up praying when we need it most, when our faith is really being put to the test. We have to pray constantly and consistently. We should not be afraid to ask for what we believe we really need.

But then, if God is such a caring person, why should we have to pray to him at all? We need to keep praying, not for his sake but for our own. By doing so, we maintain an awareness that “by ourselves we can do nothing”.

Secondly, the more we pray, the closer we come to God. And, as we pray, what we ask for will gradually change. Ultimately what we want is what we need. And what we need is to bring our thinking, our dreams, our ambitions totally into line with God’s way of seeing things.

The problem is, as Jesus says at the end today, how many people will really be doing that when he comes looking for us? How often do I pray? How consistently do I ask? What do I ask for? What do I really want? Do I distinguish between what I want and what I really need? And do I really have that faith and trust in the loving providence of my God?

There is another and very indifferent interpretation of this passage. When we read this parable about perseverance, we usually think of it in these terms: God is the judge and we are the widow. This means we should persevere in pestering God until our needs are met.

But what happens if we turn that around and say that we are the judge and God is the widow? In some ways, this interpretation makes more sense. We, like the judge, are basically unjust. Sometimes we, too, have no fear of God; that is, we do not allow God to scare us into being good.

Similarly, like the judge we persist in refusing to listen to the cries of the poor all around us. But God is the persistent widow who will not go away. God keeps badgering us, refusing to accept as final our ‘No’ to love. God will persist until we render a just judgment, that is, until we let the goodness out, until we learn to love.*

In Genesis we are told we are made in the image and likeness of God. Perhaps our prayer could be: Dear God, Persevering One, make us more like you!

*This second interpretation of the parable comes from Melanie Svoboda SND, Review for Religious, Sept-Oct 1996

Week 33 | Monday

Revelation 1:1-4; 2:1-5; Luke 18:35-43

As we come to the end of the liturgical year, these two weeks will be devoted to readings from the Book of Revelation (or Apocalypse). This is probably the book of the New Testament which causes the most puzzlement to many Christians. Its strange, obscure language seems outrageous and difficult to make sense of. For Christians of some denominations, it is an endlessly fertile ground for all kinds of speculation and interpretation about what is going in our world today.

Although it claims to be written by someone called “John”, it is not now believed that this is John the son of Zebedee and one of the 12 Apostles. Nor is the author necessarily to be identified either with the writer(s) of the Gospel or the three Letters of John. Most probably he was a Palestine-born Jew who had fled into exile and a prophetic figure known to the churches in the Asia Minor region of what is now western Turkey.

There is conflicting internal evidence about its date of writing. Many have come to the conclusion that it was composed in stages over a considerable length of time. The early section on the letters to the churches is also thought originally to have been a separate document. In any case, it is believed that the book was written during a period of persecution for the Church. Whether that was a systematic persecution by the Roman authorities (e.g. over insistence on worship of the emperor as a sign of loyalty) or simply the result of harassment by Jewish and non-Christian neighbours is not clear.

The purpose of the book is to boost morale and hope in God for a brighter future that will certainly come.

What causes most difficulty is the apocalyptic style, also found in parts of the Old Testament, most notably in the book of Daniel but also in the prophecy of Ezekiel (and, not surprisingly, these books are regularly quoted in Revelation). This style uses a great deal of symbolism, some of it rather bizarre to our way of thinking as it promises the punishment of enemies and a glorious future for God’s people.

There is no way a contemporary reader can make any sense of this book without the help of a good commentary. Even then, some of the symbolism is still lost to us. At the same time, we should not be put off nor concentrate our attention too much on the difficulties of the symbolism. Some of the most beautiful spiritual passages in the whole New Testament can be found in this book and some of them will appear in our readings. Unfortunately, they remain hidden to many people who are put off by the general language of the book.

Today’s reading consists of two parts: part of the prologue to the book and part of the first of seven letters to churches in the region.

Prologue
The book begins by stating its purpose and intent. It is a “revelation”. This is a translation of the Greek word apokalypsis, from which we get the other English title of the book ‘The Apocalypse’. It is a revelation coming from Jesus Christ and directed to his “servants” concerning events which are going to take place among God’s people. These servants may be fellow-prophets of the author, or may include evangelists and martyrs, or simply all the baptised in the community.

The receiver of the revelation calls himself John and the message, whose veracity the author guarantees, comes from an “angel”. The word ‘angel’ means ‘messenger’ (from the Greek angelos) so it may indicate someone sent by Jesus or the Messiah himself sent by God the Father. The word ‘angel’ appears more than 70 times in Revelation.

“Happy the one who reads aloud this prophecy, and happy those who listen to him, if they treasure all that it says.” This is the first of seven beatitudes which are spread through the text of Revelation. (* For convenience, the others are quoted below. Only one other of them, the 6th, appears in our liturgy readings.)

The word “happy” means much more than being in a good mood. The Greek adjective makarios includes also the idea of being blessed with good fortune. Not only the present but a future, enduring happiness is also implied.

Fortunate are those, then, who listen to the author’s “prophecy”. ‘Prophecy’ is less a matter of forecasting future events than of communicating a message or teaching from God. That teaching may include a warning about the way God’s people are misbehaving but it can also be a message of hope for a brighter and happier future - one much needed by those hearing this message. The reason for the hope is that the “Time” is close, that is, the day of Jesus’ return.

Let us, too, listen to what this book has to say. Although it was written at a particular place and time in the history of the Church, it has a message valid for every age.

Letters to the seven churches
The author, who calls himself John, now addresses seven churches or communities in seven different cities in the Roman Province of Asia (western Turkey). These churches were located about 80 km (50 miles) apart from each other and formed roughly a circle around the city of Ephesus on the coast. The cities which gave their names to these churches are: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. We will just read sections from the letters to Ephesus, Sardis and Laodicea. It seems the whole text of Revelation was sent to each of these churches (1:11). But it also seems that this section of Revelation began life as a separate piece of writing because, unlike the rest of the book, it is not apocalyptic in style.

John begins with an address and a greeting which makes use of many Old Testament allusions suggesting the glorious return of the King-Messiah and his future reign over God’s people in fulfilment of the promise made to David. This is basically what the whole book is about. Only part of this greeting is included in our reading.
He opens with a traditional form of greeting, wishing the churches “grace and peace”. He only uses the word “grace” (charis) twice in the book, while Paul uses it more than 100 times in his letters. “Grace” is that gratuitously-given love of God as experienced in our lives.

The greeting comes from “him who is and who was and who is to come”. This is a common title in Jewish literature developed from the words spoken by Yahweh to Moses from the burning bush: “I AM who I AM” (Exod 3:14-15).

The letters are more like proclamations from a Persian king or Roman emperor, each follows the same pattern and, unlike the rest of the book, are highly didactic.

Each proclamation consists of eight common characteristics:

destination;

the command to write;

the archaic “thus says” formula (“these are the words of”);

titles of Christ (largely based on the vision in 1:9-20);

the “I know” narrative;

admonitions and exhortations;

the proclamation formula (“let anyone who has an ear listen”), and

the victory formula (“whoever conquers” and similar phrases).

Moral exhortation, usually absent from apocalypses, permeates these proclamations. The general pattern in the letters is commendation, complaint and correction.

Although the letters are clearly addressed to specific churches in Asia Minor, some see in the seven letters a preview of church history in its downward course towards the tepidity of the church at Laodicea. Others interpret them as characteristic of various kinds of Christian congregations that have existed from John’s day until the present time. And certainly, each local church today could do well to see whether what is said here applies to them.

What is significant in these letters is that they reveal churches which have both their strengths and their weaknesses, quite similar to the situation in our own day. The Church has never, at any stage in its history, been anything but flawed. And it will never be otherwise.

Letter to the church at Ephesus
Our reading now takes up the letter to the Christian community at Ephesus. It is presented not as a personal message from John but as a message from God which John is simply handing on. It is addressed “to the angel of the church in Ephesus.” Here the word may mean the personification of the prevailing spirit of the church.

Ephesus was the biggest of the seven cities and capital of the province. The message comes from the one “who holds the seven stars”, that is, the Son of Man, who is surrounded by the “seven golden lampstands”, that is, the seven churches. The phrase reminds us of Jesus’ admonition that the Christian community be like a lamp on a lampstand (and not hidden away) to give light to those around it (cf. Matt 5:13-16).

Following a pattern found in all the letters, John begins by praising the Ephesians. He commends the way they have endured hardships in living their faith and for their exposing false teachers posing as apostles. This could refer to a group known as Nicolaitans. These belonged to a now unknown Christian sect in Ephesus and Pergamum; they may also be connected with a ‘Jezebel’ and her followers mentioned in the letter to the church at Thyatira (2:18ff).

However, John also regrets that the Ephesians now show less love than before. This includes both their love for Christ and their love for each other. He concludes by exhorting them to go back to their first fervour. They should remember the earlier sinful state from which they had come and return to the high standards they had set themselves at the time of the first conversion.

If they do not change their ways, the Elder will come and remove their “lampstand”, that is, their status as a Christian community. If they continue as they are now, they are no longer shining the light of Christ to the world around them.

We, too, can point to the heroism of our predecessors in maintaining the faith through many trials and sufferings. It is because of them that we have the faith today. But, in these easier times, our commitment to Christ and the Gospel can weaken. It is not difficult to drop out and no one will be very shocked. People do not care very much whether we are “religious” or not.

We have lost much of that vision which inspired our predecessors but it can be recovered. It needs to be recovered if our church is to be truly a lampstand giving light to its surroundings.

*The seven beatitudes in Revelation:

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it. (1:3)

Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord. (14:13)

Blessed is the one who stays awake and is clothed [with the teaching of the Gospel], not going about naked and exposed to shame. (16:15)

Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb. (19:9)

Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. (20:6)

Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book. (22:7)

Blessed are those who wash their robes so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. (22:14)]

Luke 18:35-43

Here we have Luke’s version of the story of the blind man, called by Mark Bar-Timaeus, the son of Timaeus.

In Mark the story is strategically placed at the end of a long teaching section where Jesus’ disciples are slowly deepening their understanding of Jesus and his mission. The story, full of symbols, sums up all that has gone before. It is like a mini-gospel (cf. reflection for Thursday of Week 8).

In Luke the story has also a very significant positioning. It falls between two other stories, both about rich people. One was a highly religious man who was not able to accept Jesus’ condition that he share his wealth with the poor before becoming a disciple. The other is about a man who supposedly was anything but religious and yet, after meeting Jesus, gives away a large proportion of his wealth to the poor. Which of these was really blind?

In addition, the first story of a rich man is followed by the third prediction of Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection, after which, says Luke, the disciples did not understand what Jesus was talking about. “They failed to comprehend what he was saying.” They, too, are blind.

As the story opens, we are told that Jesus was approaching Jericho. Jericho was a very ancient city, located about 8 km west of the River Jordan and about 25 km north-east of Jerusalem. In Jesus’ time, Jericho of the Old Testament was largely abandoned but a new city, south of the old one, had been built by Herod the Great. It was the last main stop for Jesus before arriving in Jerusalem.

In Mark’s version Jesus is leaving Jericho but here Luke has Jesus approaching the city. Mark has Jesus leaving Jericho on the way to Jerusalem and his passion, and the blind man becomes his follower. Luke has Jesus going into and through Jericho on the way to Jerusalem because he wants to bring in Zacchaeus (a man whose eyes are opened by Jesus), a story not mentioned by either Mark or Matthew.

The story begins with a blind man sitting beside the road begging. (In Matthew’s rather bald account, there are actually two blind men, cf. Matt 20:29-34.) As we have mentioned before, the ‘road’ is the Way to Jerusalem on which all of Jesus’ disciples must walk together with him. When the beggar hears that Jesus is passing by he begins to call out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Son of David, have compassion on me!” By addressing Jesus as ‘Son of David’ he implies Jesus’ role as Messiah-King.

The people tell him to keep quiet. A useless beggar like him has no right disturbing the Master. But the man ignores them and keeps crying out. (In this he reminds us of the persistent widow we read about the other day.) Now Jesus stops. If the man had not kept calling out, Jesus might not have heard him and might have passed forever out of his life. How often does that happen to me?

Jesus orders the man to be brought to him. Again, it is always through other people that we come to know Jesus – and sometimes it will be through me, and only through me, that others will come to know him. I may be the only link that a person has with Jesus. Something to think about. On the other hand, I may be the one person who blocks someone approaching Jesus and his Way. We saw earlier what happens to those who are a ‘scandal’, a stumbling block to Jesus.

“What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asks. It is a question that he keeps asking me. How do I answer? Have my answers changed over the years? Today let me reflect what I really want from him. And ask him for it.

Now listen to this man’s response to Jesus’ question: “Lord, please let me see.” Of course, one might think, it was a natural response from a person who was blind. But, in a wider sense, so is each one of us. We all need to see. It is our poor sight that prevents us from knowing Jesus and seeing where he wants us to go. We could hardly make a better request.

Jesus immediately responds: “Receive your sight. Your faith has made you well, has healed and made you whole.” If only we too had the faith that would help us to see clearly!

And what did the man do when he could see? He became a follower of Jesus and gave glory to God. No longer blind, no longer a beggar, no longer by the road but on the road with Jesus. On the road – and Jesus is the Road, the Way – to Jerusalem and all that it means. That is the natural response for those who can really see.

Just before this (we did not have this reading) the rich man who wanted “eternal life” was not able to see and so could not accept Jesus’ invitation but tomorrow we will meet someone who did have his eyes opened and responded generously.

The story also applies to Jesus’ disciples who gradually will have their eyes opened too and then they will understand why Jesus had to suffer and die on his way to glory. They will understand that it was the uttermost proof of God’s love for each one of us.

Week 33 | Tuesday

Revelation 3:1-6,14-22; Luke 19:1-10

Today we read two more of the seven letters to the churches in the Roman province of Asia. These letters are addressed to the churches at Sardis and Laodicea.

Sardis
The first is to the Christian community in Sardis. Sardis, nowadays called Sart, was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia and at that time a city famous for its wealth. Its acropolis, which rose 500 metres above the valley below, was a natural fortress on the northern slopes of Mount Tmolus.

This letter is far more critical than the one we read yesterday to the Ephesians. Quite bluntly, the church in Sardis, which seems to be alive, is in fact spiritually dead. They are urged to rouse themselves before they die out completely. (We Europeans might take note that dying churches are by no means a new phenomenon in the Church! The problem goes back to the earliest days.)

The letter comes from him “who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars”. The seven “spirits” are the seven archangels which stand before God

John can find nothing in their present way of living that could be commended and reminds them of the enthusiasm at the time of their first conversion. They should go back to that and sincerely repent of the situation they have let themselves get into. Otherwise, the Lord will come on them like a thief and that could mean some unpleasant experiences. This warning is not about the Final Coming as mentioned in the gospels but of something likely to happen sooner.

In spite of that, some have remained faithful, they have “kept their robes from being dirtied” and, dressed in the white of goodness and victory, are fit to go with the Lord. Elsewhere in the book the faithful are described as dressed in white. Their names will remain recorded in the “book of life”. In the Old Testament this referred to a register of all citizens in the kingdom community. To have one’s name removed from this book would indicate loss of citizenship in the kingdom.

Could we say that the letter to the Christians of Sardis in any describes the church community to which we belong? Even though there are some external signs of church activity (e.g. going to church), how alive are we in reality? The answer will vary greatly from community to community.

The life the Letter speaks of is there for the asking (“I have come that they may have life”) but it is up to us both individually and collectively to take the steps needed to experience that life.

Laodicea
The second letter today is addressed to the church at Laodicea. It contains some of the most striking and lovely phrases from the whole book and is totally relevant to modern readers.

Now known as Pamukkale, Laodicea was in Roman times the wealthiest city in Phrygia. We are told it was especially known for its banking, its medical school and its textile industry. Its major lack was an inadequate water supply. These characteristics are all touched on in the passage that follows.

Again the message comes through John from the “Amen”, meaning God, who is described as “the faithful, the true witness, the ultimate source of God’s creation”. Isaiah speaks of the “God of Amen”, usually translated “God of truth” or “God of fidelity”. God’s fidelity is clearly contrasted here with the behaviour of the Laodiceans. He is the “first” (arche) of all creation - either in the sense of being the ultimate source of God’s creation or the first in rank above all creation.

John’s principal complaint against this church is its tepidity. It is neither hot nor cold. “Hot” could be a reference to the hot spa in nearby Hierapolis. The church in Laodicea neither afforded the healing power of heat for the spiritually sick nor the cool refreshment for the spiritually weary. And, like a drink, which should be either piping hot or refreshingly cool but is neither, it will be vomited out of his mouth by God. (Is there anything less attractive than lukewarm coffee or tea?!)

The problem is that the Laodiceans are blinded by their material wealth which conceals their spiritual poverty from them. They are both spiritually blind and naked. To remedy this situation they are urged to buy real gold, spiritual riches that have been thoroughly tested in time of trial. Then, they will really be rich.

In addition to that they should fit themselves out with the white robes of virtue and apply a spiritual ointment to their eyes so that they can really see what is most true and worthy of pursuit in life. This is a reference to their blindness and nakedness just mentioned. Each of these three items, in material form, financial wealth (gold), its extensive textile industry (clothes) and a famous eye salve were things of which the Laodiceans were particularly proud and renowned for.

Whatever sufferings come their way should not be a matter of concern for them. For God “reproves and disciplines all those he loves”. This is a phrase taken from the Book of Proverbs.

My child, do not despise the Lord’s discipline
or be weary of his reproof,
for the Lord reproves the one he loves,
as the father the son in whom he delights. (Prov 3:11-12)

The Letter to the Hebrews also uses this text and enlarges on it (Heb 12:5-11). And Paul tells the Corinthians: “When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor 11:32).

It seems at first to be contradictory and yet it is only when we are tested that our love can grow and mature. That is just as true of our relations with our parents as it is with God. The totally undisciplined child becomes ‘spoilt’ and often flawed for life.

And the trials we experience are often calls and reminders from God to redirect our lives more in his direction, in other words, to repent, to reform, to convert.

So the Lord tells the Laodiceans that he is standing at the door, knocking. If only some of them will open the door to him, he will come in, sit down and share their meal with them. This is one of the most beautiful images in the New Testament and it has been extended to encompass the desire that Jesus has to come into and be part of all our lives. But his coming in depends entirely on us.

One of the most famous representations of the scene is by the English artist, Holman Hunt. It shows Jesus, wearing the crown of a King and holding a lamp in his hand standing outside the door of a house waiting to be admitted. The picture is entitled, “The Light of the World”. What has often been pointed out is that the door has no handle on the outside. It can only be opened from the inside. Jesus will not force his way in; he will only enter at our invitation. He is there right now and will be there all during this day and every day. Are we going to invite him in or not?

The letter concludes with a promise that the victorious, that is, those who have successfully committed themselves to following Christ and living the Gospel will sit with Jesus Christ just as Jesus himself sits with his Father. As we read in the Second Letter to Timothy:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him,
If we endure, we will also reign with him. (2 Tim 2:11-12)

Echoing the words of Jesus (Matt 11:15), the letter’s final words are: “If anyone has ears to hear, let him listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.”

This letter is probably the most powerful of the seven and the one which speaks most eloquently to our day. It warns us of the tepidity, the “I-am-a-good-enough-Catholic” syndrome that can take hold of our lives and lead us to lead lives of spiritual complacency and even smugness. It reminds us of our basic poverty, even if - indeed especially if - we are doing extremely well on the material level.

Sufferings, failures and disappointments in our lives should not be seen as punishments from God. On the contrary, God is showing his love for us through these experiences. It needs a special insight to be able to see this

Jesus our King is standing outside the door of our inner home and asking to be admitted. He wants to come in and share himself with us but it is up to us to open that door. But we need to remember that when we welcome Jesus, we also welcome and accept everything he stands for and all the challenges he sets before us to live a life like his.

Luke 19:1-10

Today we have one of the most delightful stories of Luke and indeed of the whole Gospel. It follows immediately - and not by accident - after the healing of a blind man as Jesus enters the city of Jericho, to the northeast of Jerusalem.

The central figure is Zacchaeus, who, Luke tells us, was a chief tax collector and a rich man. This is the only reference in Scripture to a ‘chief tax collector’. It probably means he was responsible for a district or region with other tax collectors answerable to him. The region at this time was prosperous so more tax collectors were needed.

Knowing he was a chief tax collector it was hardly necessary to mention that he was wealthy. Tax collectors were studiously avoided and despised by their fellow-Jews. They made contracts with the Roman authorities to collect taxes and made sure that they got from the public what today we might call generous “commissions”. After all, it was a kind of business and they had to make a living. And, if an ordinary tax collector could do well, it is easy to imagine how much a chief tax collector might make. One commentator refers to him as a ‘creep’.

Apart from forcing people to part with their hard-earned money, they were seen as traitors to their own people by taking their money and giving it to the pagan Roman colonialists occupying their country. One can see how Jesus could cause great offence to the religious-minded by sitting down and eating with such ‘scum’.

Zacchaeus heard that Jesus was in town and he was very curious to see what Jesus was like. Already we have here an echo of yesterday’s story, because Zacchaeus too wants to see. However, at this stage, it seems to be only a kind of curiosity. He just wanted to get a glimpse of a person of whom he undoubtedly heard people talk. Maybe he had even heard that Jesus had a name for mixing with people like himself.

Because he was a small man (in more ways than one?), he could not see over the large crowd of people surrounding Jesus. So he ran on ahead and climbed into the branches of a sycamore tree to get a better look. A sycamore tree can grow to a height of 10 to 15 metres, with a short trunk and spreading branches and hence easy to climb and easily capable of carrying a grown man.

Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus but he did not expect that Jesus would see him. He must have practically fallen out of the tree from surprise when he heard Jesus look in his direction and say, “Zacchaeus, hurry down. I want to stay in your house today.” What beautiful words! And yet it is a self-invitation that Jesus constantly extends to us. It is right there in our First Reading for today: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will enter his house and dine with him and he with me” (Revelation 3:20). Is my house ready, is my door open to let him in?

Zacchaeus could hardly believe his ears. He rushed down and delightedly welcomed Jesus into his house. Immediately those around began to grumble. “He has gone to a sinner’s house as a guest.” Of all the people in Jericho, Jesus picks the house of the one person in the town who was regarded as a social and religious outcast.

But, as usual, Jesus sees beyond the public image to the real person. Zacchaeus may be a chief tax collector but he is ready to give half of his property to the poor and, if he has cheated anyone, he promises to pay them back four times what they lost. Fourfold restitution was demanded by Jewish law, but in one case only, the theft of a sheep (Exodus 21:37). Roman law demanded such restitution from all convicted thieves. Zacchaeus, however, promises to pay in any case of injustice for which he has been responsible.

Some commentators read the passage as saying that Zacchaeus has already been making these forms of restitution and sharing his wealth with the poor. In which case, Jesus is able to see beyond the stereotype which makes Zacchaeus the tax collector an outcast. He was not going to the house of a sinner but to that of a good man. Jesus always sees the real person and goes beyond the label. Can we always claim to do the same?

Whatever the interpretation, we can see that, though Zacchaeus may have belonged to a discredited profession, his heart was in the right place, in the place of compassion and justice.

And so Jesus tells Zacchaeus that “salvation”, wholeness and integrity has come to his house. In spite of his despised profession he is “a descendant of Abraham” because his behaviour is totally in harmony with the requirements of the Law and in fact goes well beyond it. For Jesus, too, no social status closes the door to salvation. For this is what it means to be a “son of Abraham”, namely, to be a loving, caring person full of compassion and a sense of justice and not just a keeper of ritualistic observances.

Zacchaeus, who had originally just wanted to have an external glimpse of Jesus, has now come to see Jesus in a much deeper sense. A seeing that changed his whole life as it did that of the beggar in yesterday’s story.

Further, in answer to the accusation that he has entered the house of a sinner, Jesus says, “The Son of Man has come to search out and save what was lost.” As he said on another occasion, the healthy have no need of a physician but only the sick. Jesus is the good Shepherd leaving the well-behaved 99 and going in search of the single one that has gone astray.

As we read this story, there are a number of things we could reflect on. We too want to see Jesus in the deepest possible sense. Only then can we truly become his disciples. We need to hear him saying to us, “I want to stay in your house today.” Let us open the door and welcome him in.

And we need to be careful in judging people from their appearance or their social position or their occupation. As a Church, we could spend a lot more time looking for those who are lost instead of concentrating on serving the already converted. In fact, only when people become active evangelisers themselves can we speak of them as “converted”, as “good Christians”.

Week 33 | Wednesday

Revelation 4:1-11; Luke 19:11-28

The Prophetic Visions (chaps. 4-21):
A. The Prelude to the Great Day (chs. 4-16): God entrusts the future of the world to the Lamb.

After the letters to the seven churches, the rest of Revelation is devoted to a series of prophetic visions expressed in very symbolic language and images. Chapters 4 to 16 speak of events that will precede the “Great Day”, when the Lord comes at the end to judge and take to himself all those who belong to him and his Kingdom.

Today the author has a prophetic vision of God’s throne and this will widen to embrace the whole universe. “A door stood open” - a metaphor for the entrance to heaven, which must be open for revelation from God or for a heavenly ascent to his presence. The “first voice” heard speaking is that of Christ himself.

John hears a summons, “Come up here”, a call similar to that which Moses received to go up Mount Sinai and converse with Yahweh. He is then “possessed” by the Spirit in a kind of mystic experience in which he is given a vision of God ruling from his throne in heaven, an image familiar in the Old Testament.

God is described as being like jasper stone (diamond), a sardion (ruby) and a rainbow that looked like an emerald. John is careful not to describe God in any human-like terms but only as an overwhelming impression of light. The images are derived very much from Ezekiel, chs. 1 and 10, who likes to use apocalyptic language, and also Isaiah 6.

Surrounding God’s throne are 24 lesser thrones on which sit 24 elders, wearing white robes and golden crowns. These have the priestly role of praising and worshipping God and also of offering the prayers of the faithful. Their number may suggest the 24 priestly classes or may represent the 12 patriarchs of Israel and the 12 Apostles, the foundation stones of the New Israel.

Their sitting on thrones indicates their role as judges of the ‘new Israel’ and their crowns indicate a share in God’s power. Their white robes indicate their total identity with God and freedom from any taint of sin.

It is to be noted that the thrones of the elders make the outer ring of the heavenly court, and in the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven (chapter 21), we are told that the outer walls are composed of twelve foundation stones of apostles and twelve gates which are the twelve tribes of Israel.

From the throne come flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, traditional symbols of theophanies, when God becomes somehow visibly present, for instance, as on Mount Sinai. They are symbolic of God’s overwhelming power and majesty. In Revelation, thunder and lightning always mark an important event connected with the heavenly temple.

The seven lamps of the seven Spirits of God are the seven “angels of the presence”, God’s special messengers (‘angel’ means ‘messenger’) mentioned in the Old Testament and all through Revelation.

Between the throne of God and John there is a sea which seems to be made of glass. This may refer to the “upper waters” mentioned by Genesis in the creation story or it may be borrowed from Ezekiel. It is also possible that it refers to a heavenly counterpart of a large basin in the Jerusalem temple known as the “Sea”. Other features of the temple in heaven are: the lamps, the altar, the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant - all features of the Temple in Jerusalem (at this time already destroyed).

Inside the outer circle of 24 thrones there are four more thrones immediately around God’s throne. These are occupied by four animal-like creatures with the appearance of a lion, a bull, an animal with a human face, and a flying eagle. Again the imagery is from Ezekiel where these creatures are responsible for governing the physical world. The number four is a symbol of the whole universe: north, south, east and west. The animals chosen: lion, bull, human, and eagle suggest all that is most noble, strong, wise and swift in creation. We are also familiar with them as symbols of the four Evangelists but that is an idea that dates later on from Irenaeus, one of the Fathers of the Church.

Each of the creatures has six wings and eyes all around. They are the eyes and ears of the God who knows and provides for everything. Night and day they sing God’s praise and glory in words that we have borrowed for our Eucharist liturgies - “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty who was and is and is to come”.

And, as the four creatures sing the praises of God, the 24 elders also prostrate themselves and throw down their crowns before him, acknowledging that the power given them to rule over others comes ultimately from God himself. And they sing:

You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honour and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed
and were created.

Obviously, when we read a passage like this we are not to imagine that it in any remotely literal way corresponds to the reality of God. It is simply the use of language and images to express the inexpressible. We find similar language in mystics like John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.

It is important for us now and again to be reminded of the utter transcendence of God. Too often we reduce God to human terms and we can even identify the humanity of Christ with his divinity. But Jesus in his human nature gives us only the faintest idea of the reality of God in him/herself. What Jesus gives us in the Gospel is of priceless value because it tells us truths about God we might never have found for ourselves but what Jesus revealed to us was only a faint image of the whole God.

That is why when we have some experience in praying we find that the only thing we can do is to sit silent and motionless in a Presence that takes over our lives completely. Rather than trying to manipulate God to our own desires, we surrender to Him completely. As they say, “We let go and we let God.”

Luke 19:11-28

Immediately following the story of the tax collector Zacchaeus comes a parable about the use of what God has given to us.

Jesus and his disciples are near Jerusalem “where they thought the reign of God was about to appear”. How right they were! It was indeed going to appear in Jerusalem but not at all in the way they expected - with the political and military defeats of enemies. As the beginning of the Acts reveals, they “were hoping” that Jesus was about to restore the political kingdom of Israel. In time, they would learn that a kingdom of far greater significance was coming into being and that they would play an important part in its inauguration.

The parable which follows differs significantly from a similar one of the talents in Matthew (25:14-30). In Luke, too, there may be two parables fused into one - that of the coins and that of a disputed claimant to a royal throne (symbolising Jesus himself).

Jesus begins the parable by saying that a man of noble birth went to a far country to have himself appointed king and then return. This may have reminded his hearers of Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, who went to Rome in the year 4 BC to get himself appointed king. On his return, he succeeded his father. It may seem a rather unusual procedure but the Herods used to go to Rome in order to get appointed as rulers over the Jews.

Similarly, Jesus is soon to depart and in the future will return as king. During his absence, his servants are entrusted with their master’s affairs.

In the parable, the king, before leaving, gives ten units of money to each of ten servants and tells them to invest the money until his return. The coins are called ‘minas’ and were each worth about 100 drachmas, where a drachma was the equivalent of one day’s wages. Each coin then was the equivalent of about three months’ wages. This is a much smaller sum than those in Matthew’s parable. The other difference is that there are ten people and each one gets the same amount. (In Matthew’s parable there are three people who get respectively 10, 5 and 1 talents.)

In the parable, we are told that the people despised this man and did not want him as their king. In fact, a Jewish delegation had gone to Rome protesting at the idea of Archelaus becoming king. In the same way, Jesus was soon to go away and return some day as King and Judge. While he is ‘away’, his ‘servants’ will be entrusted to take care of their Master’s affairs. But others will reject him completely.

When he returned, the new king asked each of his servants to give an account of their trading, as Jesus will do at the Judgement. One had made another ten units on his capital of ten and he was rewarded by being put in charge of ten towns. Another had made five and was rewarded with five towns. But a third came along with just the capital he had been given. He had not traded the money for fear of losing it but kept it in a safe place. He was afraid of the king who, he said, took what he had not deposited, reaped what he had not sown.

The king was angry. He did not dispute his ruthlessness but he said that the man could at least have lent the money and got some interest. He ordered the ten units be taken from him and given to the one who had already made ten. This man was obviously good at business. The lesson of the parable is spelt out by Jesus: whoever has will be given more, but the one who has not will lose the little he has.

The last sentence of the parable, in a way, describes a third set of people in the story. The first set consists of those who used their coin well and profitably. The second is the one who kept his one coin and carefully guarded it. But finally, there are those who did not want this man as king and these are executed. “Now about those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king, bring them in and slay them in my presence.”

They are the greatest losers of all and it probably points to those Jews who rejected Jesus as King and had their city destroyed, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. The punishment of those who rebelled and actively opposed the king was much more severe than that of the over-cautious servant.

The context of the whole parable is emphasised by the last sentence of today’s reading: “Having spoken thus Jesus went ahead with his ascent to Jerusalem.” We are coming near the end of our story and the climax to which it is headed.

The parable points to all those who are being called by Christ. It is the final part of one large unit (Luke 18:18-19:28) which includes the story of a rich man with good intentions but not able to respond to Jesus’ call, a prediction of Jesus’ passion not understood by the disciples, the story of a blind man who, after having his vision restored, becomes a follower of Christ, the story of another rich man who was willing generously to share his wealth with the poor and ending with the parable of the proper use of what we have.

The first rich man claimed to follow the commandments (the Law) but wanted to keep his money safely in his own possession. He is like the man who buried his money and did not invest it in the love and service of his brothers and sisters, especially those in need. The other, Zacchaeus, generously shared his wealth with the poor. He had invested his money well. He had learned to see. Any one who can really see where Jesus is has no alternative but to go his Way.

Finally, there are those who totally reject Christ and all that he stands for. Their blindness is total.

Today we are asked to reflect on the special gifts that God has given to each one of us and how we are using them for the benefit of brothers and sisters in need. What are our attitudes to money, to property, to professional status, academic or other qualifications or other gifts with which we are endowed? Where do we invest our gifts, our talents both inborn and acquired?

The message is clear: the more we invest, the more we will gain. We cannot stand still or just cling to what we have. The only way to gain is to let go, to give and to share. Good examples of this would be St Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa. It is an attitude very foreign to many people’s way of thinking, who feel that life consists of amassing more and more, that security is in having.

But the Gospel way is really the only way that makes sense. It is not collecting but sharing that generates wealth, the wealth that really matters - freedom, security and peace.

Week 33 | Thursday

Revelation 5:1-10; Luke 19:41-44

The vision we were introduced to yesterday of God on his throne in glory continues with the introduction of a scroll which represents God’s secret plans for the world. Its contents are unfolded in chs. 6-9 of Revelation, which, however, we will not be reading in the liturgy.

Today’s passage is beautiful, once the symbolism of the images is made clear.

First, let’s say a word about scrolls. The normal way for writings to be kept was in the form of scrolls. Books, as we know them, did not come into existence until the 2nd century AD. The scroll was made either of leather (e.g. parchment) or from papyrus, a reed whose fibres were made into a kind of rough paper. They were written normally on only one side (but sometimes two) and in columns with pen and ink. After completion, they were rolled up and sealed so that only those authorised could read them. (Very few people could read anyway. Widespread literacy would have to wait for printing.) Some examples found in Egypt could be up to 100 feet in length but biblical scrolls would seldom be more than 30 feet, for instance the text of Isaiah. Reading them was a somewhat inconvenient process as they had to be unrolled and re-rolled at the same time. The arrival of the book changed all that by making any part of the script quickly accessible (as the CD did for the recording tape).

In his vision, John sees the One on the throne, God, holding a scroll in his hands. Unusually, it was written on both sides and it had seven seals. This indicated its degree of total inaccessibility to the unauthorised.

The voice of an angel then is heard asking if anyone, anywhere has the authority to break the seals and read the scroll. But it seemed that there was absolutely no one in the whole universe (“in heaven, on the earth, or under the earth”) who could do so. The known universes consisted of these three components. “Under the earth” was Hades, the place of the dead and the word corresponding to the Hebrew sheol. Only Christ has the power to release those trapped there.

John weeps when he realises that no one is found worthy to open and reveal the contents of the scroll, until one of the 24 elders tells him that there is someone who can open the scroll and read it.

He is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David”. The “Lion of Judah” is a messianic title found in Genesis, where Judah is referred to as a “lion’s cub” and promised the right to rule “until he comes to whom it belongs”. The “Root of David”, from Isaiah, points to a future saviour-king descended from King David. The Lord Jesus, of course, is indicated here. “He has conquered”, that is, over Satan and the world.

The “Lion” then appears in the form of a Lamb, standing between the throne of God with the four creatures and the outer circles of the elders on their 24 thrones. The Lamb bears the marks of having been sacrificed, for this is the Passover Lamb sacrificed to save God’s people. Although the wounds are visible, the Lamb has risen from death and is upright in triumph and victory. The wounds are the badges of his victory over sin and death.

As a conqueror of death, this Lamb is also a Lion. (Incidentally, Revelation uses a word for “lamb” [arnion, 29 times, which is found only once elsewhere in the New Testament, in the scene after the resurrection where Jesus tells Peter to feed his “lambs” and “sheep”, John 21:15]. There is also a tradition in apocryphal writing for the lamb as a victorious military leader. The Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes. The number ‘seven’ indicates fullness and completeness. The horns represent power and the eyes knowledge and wisdom.

The Lamb now comes forward to take the scroll from the hands of God sitting on his throne. As soon as he does so, the four creatures and the 24 elders all prostrate themselves. They give the same worship to the Lamb as they do to the One on the throne.

They each have a harp, used to accompany the songs of praise they sing, and bowls of incense representing the prayers of the whole Christian community. Incense was a normal feature of Hebrew ritual. In later Jewish thought, angels often present the prayers of saints to God (e.g. Tob 12:15). (Our image of heaven as people kneeling on clouds playing harps comes from images like this in Revelation. Again, our future life with God should in no way be seen as being like this!)

The passage concludes with the “new” hymn of the creatures and the elders, a hymn in praise of the Lamb, who alone is found worthy to open the scroll. In the Old Testament a new song celebrates a new intervention of deliverance or blessing by God. Here it is the Lamb who has earned the right to open the scroll by the sacrificing and pouring out of his blood which bought back people of every race and nation and “made them a line of kings and priests to serve our God and rule the world”. ‘Kings and priests’, previously an Old Testament designation of Israel, is now applied in the New Testament to the whole Christian community.

Through our baptism and our identifying with the Lamb, we share in a special way in both the kingship and priesthood of Christ and also in his role as prophet. This is true of every single Christian and not just the hierarchy, clergy or religious.

Today we give special thanks and praise to the Lamb, who sacrificed his life in love for us and who, through his life, death and resurrection and the through Gospel (the Scroll) he bequeathed to us has left us a priceless guide to a life of happiness and fulfilment.

Luke 19:41-44

Jesus is now on the last stage of his mission. He approaches Jerusalem, which will be the scene for the last great act of his life - his passion, death and resurrection. From here too will rise up the new community founded in his name, commissioned to continue the work he had started.

As he approaches the city he weeps over its tragic end. He implies that, if the city had received him as Lord and King, it might not have met the fate that was in store for it. “If only you had known the path to peace this day; but you have completely lost it from view.” The second half of the word ‘Jeru-salem‘ means ‘peace’, shalom. The city had not known the ‘path to peace’, which, of course, was that which led to Jesus, the Prince of Peace and the source of all peace in our lives. And it has hardly known peace since that time, especially where the Jewish people are concerned.

The rest of the passage is a prophecy of what in fact is going to happen to the city. We know that it was besieged by the Emperor Titus in the year 70 AD. However, Jesus’ words are built up from many Old Testament references and seem to refer rather to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC as much, if not more, than that brought about by the Romans. And, as none of the distinctive features of the Roman siege are mentioned, the words seem to date from before that time.

But, of course, it was the Romans who destroyed the city and its huge Temple, one of the wonders of the ancient world, was reduced to ruins. The Temple was ransacked and its most precious ornaments, including the seven-branched candlestick, were carried off. All of this is sculpturally recorded in the triumphal Arch of Titus erected in Rome to commemorate his victory and which can be seen in the Forum to this day.

All this will take place, Jesus says, “because you did not recognise the time of your visitation”. So many failed to recognise in Jesus as Messiah God’s coming to visit them and rejected him.

With the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish faith was dealt a serious blow from which it may be said it has never fully recovered. No temple has ever taken its place for it is felt it can only be on the same sacred site in Jerusalem. Unfortunately for the Jews, a mosque stands on the site today and is not likely to be removed. All that is left of Herod’s temple is the Wailing Wall, where Jews go to lament their lost glory.

For us Christians, there is no exclusively holy place, although certain places are of special significance to us. But, as Paul reminds us, each baptised person is a temple of the Spirit and is to act as such and be respected as such. “Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them,” Jesus told his disciples (Matthew 18:20).

Such a gathering may be at a solemn papal Mass in the magnificent basilica of St Peter’s in Rome or it may be Christians gathering secretly in prayer in a labour camp in China. It does not matter. It is the closeness to Christ and to each other that matters and not the place.

Week 33 | Friday

Revelation 10:8-11; Luke 19:45-48

We skip a number of chapters in coming to today’s reading. The intervening chapters had discussed the gradual opening of the seven seals on the scroll and the sounding of six of seven trumpets.

Today’s reading is a digression from the main theme. John has been offered a small scroll by an angel of God. This scroll represents a revelation from God. He is told to take the scroll from the angel’s hand.

When he does so, he is told to “take it and eat it”. He is warned that it will taste sour in his stomach but sweet as honey in his mouth.

The scene is very reminiscent of an almost identical passage in the prophet Ezekiel where the prophet is told to eat a scroll and then share what he has received with others. It also reminds us, of course, of the instructions of Jesus to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

In all three cases the meaning is the same. They are instructions to absorb and assimilate completely the word of God or, in the case of the Gospel, the words and teaching of Jesus, who is, course, the Word of God, and make them our own. They then become part of our very being.

The contents are both sweet and sour. The message in itself, at a first taste, is sweet in its promise of life but it is sour in so far it will also entail a degree of pain and suffering for the Church and its members in living out the message. And that is the experience that John has as he “eats” the scroll.

Now, armed with the revelation that the scroll contains, John is told to prophesy again, that is, to proclaim the message of God’s plan which he has received from God. These prophecies are recorded in Revelation after the sounding of the seventh trumpet (which begins at 11:15 but will not be included in our readings).

In a very similar way, we are called on to “eat” the Gospel and the whole of the Scriptures. This is the real meaning of our “eating and drinking” in the Eucharist. It is not just a physical or devotional act. It is a community statement of our deepest desire to see and love Christ in every person and in every experience of our day.

Unfortunately, “eating the Scriptures, the Word of God” is for many Catholics a very small part of their daily diet. Some are quite illiterate when it comes to the Word of God. It is a sad situation where, among Christians generally, Catholics are probably the greatest offenders.

And yet, we cannot really call ourselves disciples until we have entered on what is a lifelong task - deepening our understanding of God’s Word and assimilating its vision into our very being. A knowledge of our school catechism will not by itself fill this void.

We need, as Paul tells us, to have the mind of Christ, that is, to see life just as he sees it. We need to be able to say, as he could, “I live, no, it is not I, but Christ lives in me”.

Luke 19:45-48

Luke tells us very briefly of the scene where Jesus, now in Jerusalem, drives the traders from the courts of the Temple. “‘My house is meant for a house of prayer’,” says Jesus quoting from Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11) respectively, “but you have turned it into ‘a den of thieves’.”

The trading took place in the outer court, also known as the Court of the Gentiles, and, as is not unusual in such situations, prices could be grossly inflated. John speaks of a cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:13-25) but in the other three gospels it takes place at the end. Two possible explanations have been given. Either there were two cleansings or, more likely, John moved the story to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons. He wanted to show Jesus as Messiah right from the beginning whereas in the Synoptics Jesus’ identity as Messiah is only gradually revealed. There are also some differences in the various accounts. John mentions cattle and sheep and has Jesus use a whip made of cords. Matthew and Luke seem to indicate that the event took place on what we call Palm Sunday but for Mark it was on the following day (Mark 11:1-17).

Those coming to the Temple needed to buy animals for the sacrifices and they needed to change their Roman coins into acceptable Jewish currency (shekels) to make their contributions to the Temple. Jesus had no problem about that. What he objected to was that this business was being carried on inside God’s house when it could just as well have been done outside.

We all know how street traders try to get as close to the action as they can. However, there may be hints that priests in the Temple connived at this business and hence would certainly have profited from it. But Jesus (and probably others as well) felt that such business was not appropriate in a place dedicated to the worship of God.

It would be hard for us to imagine hawkers being allowed to set up stalls inside our churches, although the vendors of Sunday papers do get pretty close to the church doors.

Not surprisingly, the chief priests and the scribes - especially those who might have been involved in what must have been a lucrative business - were plotting how to get rid of Jesus who was upstaging their authority and accusing them of hypocrisy, greed and corruption. The chief priests, as members of the ruling Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, wielded great authority. But it was not going to be easy as the ordinary people continued to flock to Jesus and, as Luke tells us, “were hanging on his every word”.

Jesus is an example of the true prophet. He speaks as a messenger of God and is indeed God’s own Son. He stands as a counter-witness to all that is against truth, love and justice and as such inevitably incurs the anger and hostility of those who have power, power based on falsehood, on self-interest, corruption and injustice.

Our Church, in its communities and through individuals, is called on to continue that mission of counter-witness. It will win us the support and admiration of some but also the hostility, the anger and even the violence of others. This is something we should not at all be surprised at nor something we should try to avoid. Our only concern must be always to speak the truth in love. God will take care of the rest. Because, ultimately, truth, love and justice will prevail.

Week 33 | Saturday

Revelation 11:4-12; Luke 20:27-40

Today’s reading seems at first sight to be very obscure in meaning. After the eating of the scroll there is a second digression by the author which describes two rather mysterious “witnesses”. They are referred to as two olive trees and two lamps and had been given authority to prophesy for 1,260 days or three and a half years, a conventional period for eschatological distress.

These titles originally were applied by the prophet Zechariah to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the religious and civil leaders respectively, who restored the temple and the city of Jerusalem after the return from the Babylonian Exile. Here it is possible they represent the leaders of the New Temple and the New Jerusalem, namely Peter and Paul.

The descriptive images which follow link them to Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets who appeared at the Transfiguration along with Jesus endorsing his mission, his suffering, death and resurrection.

Anyone who attacks them will be consumed by fire. The fire that consumes enemies reminds us of how King Ahaziah’s emissaries to Elijah were twice destroyed by fire brought down on them by God through his prophet. (2 Kings 1)

And the power to shut up the sky refers to the great drought that came on Israel in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 17). Their ability to turn water into blood and bring other plagues recalls how Moses brought the plagues to Egypt to make the Pharaoh repent and release the Israelites (Exodus 7).

But, after they have completed their task of giving witness to Christ and the Gospel, the “beast” comes from the Abyss, overcomes and kills them. Their killer is the Antichrist. His coming from the Abyss indicates his demonic origins. Some see the beast as Nero, the emperor traditionally thought to have martyred both Peter and Paul. In any case, he stands for a ruler opposed to God’s people. The death of these prophets parallels that of their Master and Lord.

Leaving their bodies to lie in the street of a “great city” was a serious violation of all decency for people in the Middle East (cf. the burial of Jesus himself).

The “great city” may be either Jerusalem or Rome. Jerusalem is sometimes called Sodom by the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) for its moral wickedness and Egypt for its idolatry and oppression. It is also, of course, the city where Jesus was crucified. However, Jesus could have been said to have been executed in Rome in so far as Jerusalem was under Roman rule and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. (The Jews preferred stoning.) The two prophets or “witnesses”, if they are Peter and Paul, would have died in Rome.

The outrage against them is repeated as they are left lying unburied for three and a half days because the “nations” will not allow their burial. (In the Middle East and generally in the Muslim world people are buried very soon after death.)

Their death, however, is celebrated by the “world”, which found the teaching of these prophets a scourge. This, of course, was only to fulfil the teaching of Jesus about the fate that would await those who preached his Gospel (cf. Matt 10:16ff). Things have not changed in our own day.

However, this was not the end. For after three and a half days, God gave them new life. They stood up (i.e. they “rose”, “resurrected”) and all who saw this were terrified. The killing of Christians, the making of martyrs, in the whole history of the Church has only brought new life, new energy, and new courage. A striking example was the killing of Bishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador. The Church thrives most of all in time of persecution.

Finally, the two prophets are called up to the very presence of their Lord and, like him, ascend in a cloud, the very symbol of God’s presence.

Let us hope that we, too, will be able to follow them. For that we need to give witness to our faith, even in times of difficulty or when faced with opposition. That is no time to hide our light under a bushel or to bury our talent in the ground. As a risen people, we are called on to stand up. How else can the Gospel message of truth and love be seen and heard?

Luke 20:27-40

Today we move on to the middle of chapter 20. In previous passages which are not included in these readings, Jesus had rebutted a challenge to his authority and left his critics literally speechless. This was followed by his speaking a parable about tenant farmers. He was clearly referring to his questioners and identifying them with the wicked tenants who abused all the emissaries (the prophets) sent by the owner of the vineyard and culminated in the killing of his son. The identity of the tenants and of the Son is clear. This is followed by Jesus being confronted with a seemingly innocuous question about paying taxes to Caesar which again resulted in the silence of his critics.

Today another group, the Sadducees, thought they might do better.

The Sadducees, among whom were numbered some of the most powerful Jewish leaders, including high priests, restricted their beliefs to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, reputedly written by Moses and containing the essence of the Jewish Law.

For that reason, unlike the Pharisees, they did not accept some beliefs which occur only in later books of the Old Testament. Among these, for instance, were the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead.

The Sadducees thought then they could stump Jesus with an unanswerable conundrum. They first quote a prescription from the Law of Moses by which a man was expected to marry the wife of his eldest brother, if there had been no children by the marriage. They then propose an imagined situation of seven brothers. The first married but was childless, so in accordance with the requirements of the Law the second married the widow, then the third and so on. Eventually, all seven brothers married the woman but there were still no children.

The unanswerable question they proposed was that, if there really was a resurrection after death, which of the seven men would be the woman’s husband in the next life? For them, there was no problem; they did not believe in the resurrection. Death was the end of everything. For one who believed in the resurrection, it was an embarrassing difficulty - or so they thought.

Jesus quickly brushes the problem aside. To begin with, in the next life there are no marriage relationships. “The children of this age [i.e. those who belong this world] marry and remarry but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage”.

In the new life, all live face to face with God in a life that never ends. All are equally children of God, brothers and sisters to each other, taking their life and existence from him. That is now the focus of their relationship and it is through that relationship that they are bound together.

Jesus then goes on to challenge the Sadducees’ unbelief about life after death. He shrewdly quotes from a part of the Bible which they recognise as true. He reminds them of the scene where the voice from the burning bush identifies itself to Moses. “I AM the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6). God, says Jesus, is the God of the living and not of the dead [i.e. of those who no longer exist]. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive then the Sadducees’ argument falls. Perhaps we would not be convinced by such an argument but it clearly worked in this case.

Some scribes who were listening in were delighted at the refutation of the Sadducees. Most of them were Pharisees and believed in the resurrection. At the same time, after these replies of Jesus to both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, “they no longer dared to ask him anything”.

We, of course, believe in the resurrection not so much because of Jesus’ arguments here but because of his own resurrection and his promise to share his life with us forever.

Week 34 | Monday

Rev 14:1-5

In a passage immediately preceding today’s and not included in our liturgical readings, the followers of the Beast, an agent of Satan, were said to be branded on the right hand or the forehead with their name and number, just as slaves were branded with their owner’s sign or the way we brand cattle and sheep today. This was a sign of ownership. The Beast is also identified with the enigmatic number 666, said to be the sum of the numeric value given to the Hebrew letters making up the name Nero Caesar. [As a document written during time of persecution, many references in Revelation are expressed in a code which would only be understood by those within the persecuted community.]

In today’s reading, the followers of the Beast, who are branded with his name and number, are now contrasted with the followers of the Lamb marked with his name and the name of the Father. And just as there was a ‘remnant’ of Israel that returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile, here we have the ‘remnant’ of the new Israel, the faithful Christians who have survived persecution and who will begin the restoration of God’s kingdom once its enemies have been destroyed.

John has a vision of Mount Zion. Originally Mount Zion referred to the fortress of the pre-Israelite city of Jerusalem before it was taken over by David and made his capital. The term in time became synonymous with Jerusalem itself and, in Revelation, it refers to the “heavenly Jerusalem”, the place where God lives for ever with his people. At the end of Revelation, it comes down to the ‘new earth’.

Here John sees the Lamb with 144,000 faithful followers, all of whom have the name of the Lamb and of the Father on their foreheads, again as a sign of ownership. The number 144,000 is a multiple of the perfect and complete number 12 (and, for that reason, is not to be taken literally). These are the ones who have not compromised their faith and have persevered through times of persecution by being ready to give their lives for their faith in Christ. They are the martyrs (a word which means ‘witness’), those who gave the ultimate witness of their faith. They are, as it were, the nucleus of the final Kingdom.

And John hears a mighty sound as loud as that of the crashing surf of the ocean or the roar of thunder. It was the sound of harps being played. It was the accompaniment to a new song they were singing in the presence of God’s throne, the four creatures and the 24 elders. Just as Moses celebrated the deliverance of God’s people from Egypt with a new song, so the 144,000 also celebrate the deliverance of God’s people and the new order which the Lamb has inaugurated with a song. It was a song only they who had been saved from the ‘world’, the pagan world of sin, by the Lamb were competent to sing.

[At this point in the original text there is a sentence omitted from our reading: “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.” In this context, it is generally understood that John is speaking metaphorically. In the Old Testament marital infidelity was often a metaphor for idolatry, in this case, the worship of the Beast. But, even after legitimate intercourse, the release of semen was regarded as rendering the man unclean and similarly for the release of menstrual blood in the woman. The only way to avoid such ‘uncleanness’ then was total abstinence. The “virgins” in this context are those who, even at the cost of their lives, have remained totally faithful to God and Christ, who have not been contaminated in the slightest way by a corrupt and immoral world - whether they were actually married or not. Perhaps it is this verse which had an influence on the future asceticism of the Church and the high esteem given to virginity and celibacy in the Christian life. There are far more ‘virgin’ saints, men and women, than married men or women in our liturgical calendar.]

And so they are said to follow the Lamb wherever he goes just as the Israelites followed Yahweh after the Exodus into the desert where the marriage rite of the covenant was sealed and signed and as the first disciples left everything and walked after Jesus.

They are called the “firstfruits” of God and of the Lamb. Just as in Jewish tradition the first fruits of the crops were always offered to the Lord, so these martyrs are the choice offering of the community made to God and the Lamb. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase applies to the first converts in a particular place and to the first to rise from the dead.

Finally, they “never allowed a lie to pass their lips”. That is, they never invoked the Beast (the emperor) as their god. Unlike the Gentiles mentioned by Paul in Romans who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25).

Naturally, we all hope and pray that we too may be numbered among that host of martyr-witnesses with the Lamb, our Lord and Saviour. We, too, have been marked in baptism with God’s sign of ownership on us. But that still requires our total commitment and response to his call.

May we strive to follow the Lamb closely in our faithfulness to the Gospel at all times. Let our lives be lived in total integrity so that we always in fact are what we would like to be seen to be.

Luke 21:1-4

Today we begin the last chapter of Luke’s gospel preceding his account of the Passion. Jesus is still in Jerusalem and spending time preaching in the Temple.

As he stood one day near the treasury where there were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes to receive the offerings, he saw among all the well-off people dropping in their (surplus) money a poor widow who put in two copper coins of very small value.

Jesus immediately comments on her generosity and faith. The others were putting in offerings which they could easily afford; it would have involved no diminution of their lifestyle, no hardship of any kind. But this woman was a poor widow and therefore belonging to the least advantaged of all people in that society. In fact, poverty and widowhood were, for many, almost synonymous.

And this woman put in everything she had. It has been observed that she had two coins and she put in both. In the circumstances, she need only have put in one and kept the other for her own needs.

Jesus sets her up as an example of someone who put her total trust in God’s providence. She gave everything to him.

No one is saying that one should literally follow her example - it could be seen as irresponsible. We are told to love our neighbours - but also ourselves. At the same time, how often when we do dip into our pockets do we really give to others money that we were thinking of spending on something we do not really need? Or are we like the people in today’s story who casually give money they will not miss in the slightest? There is a difference between ‘giving alms’ and sharing our goods and good fortune with those who have less, a lot less, than us.

St Paul, writing to the Christians of Corinth and appealing for help for poorer Christian communities, says in part:

For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has - not according to what one does not have. I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written:

Whoever had much did not have more,

And whoever had little did not have less. (Exodus 16:18).

This is a nice description of what justice in our society means.

There have been Christians who closely followed the widow’s example. Mother Teresa absolutely refused to have any stable income for her work and she was not been alone in this. And it has often been remarked that it is people at the lower end of our society who are most generous in supporting needy causes.

The fact that this story comes just before the Passion has led many to see in this woman a symbol of Jesus himself, who will, in the words of the Letter to the Philippians, “empty himself” completely and surrender his whole life totally into the hands of his Father, holding nothing back. But even during Jesus’ life he seems to have had no private means of any kind. At the same time, he was not a beggar. He simply lived a life where he gave totally of himself and others gave him in return just what he needed at any particular time.

Clearly, most people cannot literally follow the example of Jesus but there are many examples of people who did. If only we, too, could have that kind of trust, that kind of generosity, that ability to share and that kind of freedom - freedom from material ‘wants’ and freedom for others.

The richest person is not the one who has accumulated much but the one who has the least needs. In this sense, this poor widow was rich indeed.

Week 34 | Tuesday

Revelation 14:14-19; Luke 21:5-11

Today’s passage, whose meaning at first sight seems puzzling, is a vision of gathering together the righteous and the good, followed by judgement on the wicked. The actual destruction of the wicked pagans will be treated more fully later on (19:11ff - and not part of our liturgical readings).

Our reading today is inspired by a short passage from the prophet Joel (3:13) based on the grain and grape harvests:

“Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their wickedness is great.”

As we shall see, the grain represents the good and the wine the bad.

In his vision, John, sees “one like a son of man” sitting on a cloud. The “son of man” refers to Christ and the cloud indicates a divine presence; it is God’s throne. He wears a crown of gold on his head, representing a golden wreath of victory, his victory over death and sin.

In his hand, he carries a sharp sickle. The sickle, used by the Israelites for cutting grain, consisted usually of a flint or iron blade attached to a curved handle of wood or bone. The sickle is the tool for harvesting and Christ as Judge comes to reap his harvest, gathering in, first of all, the elect, those who have been faithful to his Word.

“The harvest of the earth is ripe,” says a second angel, or messenger from God. In other words, it is the time for the final judgement and the gathering in of the righteous. So, the “son of man” wields his sickle over the earth and brings in his harvest.

In the second part of the reading, we see another angel, also with a sharp sickle, coming out from the “temple in heaven”, the place where God has his dwelling. And, with that angel, is another “in charge of the fire”. In Jewish tradition various angels were responsible for particular aspects of the world, including wind, water and the bottomless pit. Here, fire is closely associated with the idea of judgement. Fire both destroys the bad and purifies the good.

The angel of fire left the altar where the prayers of the persecuted and martyred are carried up to God. Now judgement comes on those who made them suffer.

The One with the sharp sickle is then instructed to cut and gather in all the ripe grapes which are then put into a huge winepress to be crushed. The context suggests (in contrast to the harvesting sickle mentioned earlier) the smaller grape-knife with which the farmer cut the clusters of grapes from the vine. The traditional winepress was “a rock-hewn trough about eight feet square with a channel leading to a lower and smaller trough. Grapes were thrown into the upper vat and trampled with bare feet. The juice was collected in the lower vat. At times mechanical pressure was added.” (NIV Study Bible).

The treading of the grapes was a common symbol in the Old Testament for the carrying out of God’s judgement. In Isaiah 63:1-3 there is a vivid image of God treading the winepress of judgement:

“I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their juice spattered on my garments, and stained all my robes.”

So, today’s reading speaks of the “winepress of God’s anger”.

Our reading concludes at this point but there is one more verse in the full text: “And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for a distance of about 300 km.” The pagans are to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem because bloodshed would defile the city. Jesus too was executed and shed his blood outside of Jerusalem (cf. Heb 13:12ff). This said two things: Jesus and the New Covenant had been rejected and, in his dying, he identified himself with the sinner whom he came to reconcile with God.

The theme of the final judgement is one that goes right through our readings as we approach the end of the liturgical year. It is a time for reflection on where we stand before God and before each other.

These reminders are not meant to frighten us but to help us to prepare and, above all, to be ready at all times. For our judgement is as close as the day of our death, which can come up on us like a thief in the night. Every day we read of people whose lives have come to a totally unexpected end. But, if we are always ready, there is nothing to fear.

Luke 21:5-11

The Temple at Jerusalem in Jesus’ time was a magnificent building and one of the wonders of the world. As the Gospel tells us it had been more than 40 years in the building and was not yet completed.

People were commenting to Jesus on the beautiful decorations of jewels and votive offerings. His hearers must have been shocked, if not utterly sceptical, when Jesus told them that in time the building would be utterly destroyed with “not one stone left on another”. Who would ever have dreamt that the World Trade Center, that temple to capitalism, would be reduced to rubble in a matter of minutes? And how much more the Temple of God?

“When will this happen?” they asked him. “And what will be the signs preceding?” Jesus’ answer is directed more to the end of time than to the actual destruction of the Temple which occurred about 40 years later in the year 70 AD. In fact, one event blends into the other. To many who were witnesses to its destruction, it must have seemed like the end of their world. What kind of life could they live without their Temple, without the dwelling place of their God? How could Yahweh allow such a thing to happen? It left a huge empty space in their lives which nothing else could fill.

Jesus’ warning is that his followers should not misread the signs or be too alarmed. It seems the early Christians were in general expecting Jesus to return for his Second Coming within their lifetime. This must have led to many false alarms - people claiming to be the returned Lord or warning that the end of all things was close at hand. Even the destruction of the Temple (for many of the Christians were converted Jews) must have looked like the beginning of the end. St Augustine had similar feelings as Rome, the heart of Christendom, fell in ruins to the ‘barbarians’ (the ancestors of many of us!). The end of Rome seemed to him like the end of the world.

Jesus tells his followers not to be too ready to believe what they hear people saying. Nor are they to be too alarmed when they hear of wars and social upheavals. There will be, too, many natural disasters, widespread diseases and celestial phenomena. These do not necessarily spell the end. The message now being given is: “The end does not follow immediately.”

At every pivotal time in the history of our planet, there are people who claim to see the end in sight. The coming of the third millennium was no exception. So far they have all been wrong. The attitude of Christians is not to be one of fear and anxiety. It sees the new era as a time of challenge and opportunity, a time for new beginnings.

On a more personal and much more realistic level, we may be anxious about the signs of our own time of departure from this world. But again it does not help to become fearful and anxious but rather to live each day to the full and to make it productive for ourselves and others.

Week 34 | Wednesday

Revelation 15:1-4; Luke 21:12-19

Our reading today actually introduces the last of three seven-fold series of plagues, seven golden bowls filled with God’s anger against the unrepentant wicked. It consists of the introduction to the chapter which precedes the vision of the seven cups and contains a triumphant hymn of the good and righteous. In this way it sets up the context in which God’s anger and God’s punishment against the wicked are seen as entirely just and justified.

Today John gives us another vision he has had. He sees the seven angels, or messengers of God, bringing the last seven plagues on the wicked. They are the last because “they exhaust the anger of God”; with them God’s anger is satisfied.

God’s anger is a theme that goes right through the New Testament. Paul, for instance, in the letter to the Romans says:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18).

And it is spoken about even more frequently in the Old Testament as well. We remember the many occasions when God was deeply disappointed with the thankless behaviour of his people whom he had delivered from the slavery of Egypt. Even earlier there is the punishment of the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In later times, one invasion followed another, kings were deposed or died terrible deaths, the people were taken away into exile, Jerusalem and the Temple were sacked and destroyed more than once - all the result of Israel’s sin.

However, we have to be careful when speaking of God’s anger not to equate it with the kind of anger we ourselves are prone to from time to time. Our anger is often a spontaneous and uncontrolled emotional reaction to a situation and is often quite out of proportion to what actually happened.

God’s anger is measured and balanced. It is not really anger in our sense. Rather, it is the response he gives to those who totally reject his call to a life of truth and love and union with him. In fact, it is not God who rejects and punishes his people. Rather, it is they who reject him and find themselves in terrible isolation from the One for whom their whole being craves.

Our God is much more a God of love, who did not spare his only Son that we might be saved rather than condemned. God did with his Son what Abraham was ready to do but did not have to. But still there are those who turn their backs on that love. What can God do except let them go and have their will?

In his vision John sees a lake like glass suffused with fire. It is thought that this is a heavenly counterpart to a basin in the Jerusalem temple which was known as the “Sea”. Other symbols of the Temple which appear in Revelation are: the lamps, the altar, the altar of incense, and the Ark of the Covenant. It represents the new heavenly Temple where the elect gather and sing their praises to God.

The elect are those who have struggled victoriously against the Beast, his statue and “the number which is his name”. This seems to refer to those especially who died as martyrs rather than worship the image of the emperor as a god.

[One wonders whether the Romans really believed the divine attributes of their emperors, most of whom had glaring human weaknesses, and enforced bowing to the emperor’s image mainly as a test of loyalty to the regime. In any case, committed Christians were not prepared to compromise the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ. They would not give to Caesar what belonged to God.]

The gathered assembly of the elect, each with a harp given to them by God, now sings the hymn of Moses and of the Lamb. The hymn of Moses, found in Exodus chapter 15 celebrated the triumph of the Israelites over Pharaoh. It begins with the words: “I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea...” We sing part of this hymn during Easter Vigil liturgy. It is also a victory song and was sung on Sabbath evenings in the synagogue.

Here the elect also sing the song of the Lamb, who has triumphed over the forces of evil in bringing deliverance to all his followers. It is a hymn to the Lord God Almighty, the King of nations, who alone is holy and to whom all peoples eventually will come in adoration because of his “many acts of justice”.

Let us pray that we too may one day come to sing this hymn of praise, adoration and thanksgiving in a face to face presence with our Lord. Let us not, through our own stupid choices, face the “anger” of our God and find ourselves hearing those terrible words: “I do not know you, stranger.”

Luke 21:12-19

Jesus continues his warnings, but now mainly to his own disciples. He foretells experiences and happenings which will be soon realised in the Acts of the Apostles, not to mention in the subsequent history of the Church through the centuries, not excluding our own.

Jesus speaks of abuse and persecution. “They will hand you over to the synagogues and prisons…” The term ‘hand over’ is a theme word occurring again and again in the New Testament. John the Baptist was handed over to Herod who put him in prison and then executed him. Jesus himself is handed over first to the leaders of his own people and then into the hands of the Romans who would execute him. And now Jesus tells his disciples that they, too, can expect to be ‘handed over’ and to be dragged before civil and religious courts and “all because of my name”.

Many of the early Christians came in conflict with Jewish communities and were ‘handed over’ to synagogues. Synagogues were not only prayer halls and places to learn the Scriptures but also for civil administration and as places of confinement while awaiting trial.

The charges may be civil or criminal but the real reason will be that the accused are followers of Christ. (China, for example, always insists that the arrest of religious people is because of their violation of civil and criminal laws and not because of their religious affiliation.) As such Christians become objects of fear and hatred, their ideas seen as threatening and even subversive.

But, says Jesus, they are not themselves to fear or be anxious. When the time comes, they will know what to do and what to say. He will tell them what to say and how to answer. A promise that has been vindicated again and again. The really sad thing is that those betraying them to the authorities will often be members of their own household - “parents, brothers, relatives and ‘friends’”. Again, this prophecy sadly has been realised all too often.

“All will hate you because of me.” This is strange and, in a way, makes no sense. Jesus who preached truth, love, freedom, peace, justice and non-violence becomes, in his followers, the object of lies, hatred, imprisonment and torture, division, injustice and the most terrible violence.

“Yet not a hair of your head will be harmed.” Not a phrase to be taken literally because many suffer terribly in their bodies but there is an inner integrity and wholeness that nothing can destroy.

“By patient endurance you will save your lives.” That is, by going through all that our enemies can throw at us we come out at the end people who are whole and complete and who can lift our heads up high. One thinks of, in our own time, Bishop Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Maximilian Kolbe and many others. Their memories are treasured and become an inspiration to all of us.

Let us pray that we may have the courage to be true to our Christian values whatever the cost. Let us not be surprised that our faith and our religion can create such anger and such hostility. At the same time, we reach out continually in truth and love to dissipate the unjustified fears that our beliefs can engender in others.

We are a threat to false values but we must try hard to help people see where real truth and goodness lie. And we do that by seeking for that in our own lives.

Week 34 | Thursday

Revelation 18:1-2,21-23; 19:1-3,9; Luke 21:20-28

Our reading is in two parts today: first, an angel announces the fall of Babylon, and this is followed by songs of victory in heaven. The reading consists of relatively short extracts from all of chapter 18 and half of chapter 19.

John has a vision of an angelic messenger, who had great authority and whose brightness lit up the whole earth. He is, of course, an emissary from God and speaks with God’s voice. He announces the coming fall of Babylon, that is, Rome, the centre of the empire and the source of so much persecution for the Christians.

The image of the coming destruction on the city must echo in many ways the state of Jerusalem after it was destroyed by the Romans within the living memory of the author and his readers: a haunt of devils, a lodging for every foul spirit and dirty, loathsome bird and every hateful beast scavenging the remains of the devastated city.

In a symbolic act, another angel lifts up a huge boulder, in the shape of a millstone, and hurls it into the sea. This was a very large millstone, sometimes called a “donkey millstone” because it was so heavy it required a donkey to turn it. This is what was going to happen to Rome. It is going to be destroyed because of its idolatry and for the sufferings it brought on the Christians. In the Gospel Jesus had said that the only deserving treatment for someone who blocked a disciple coming to Christ was to have a millstone put around his neck and that he be thrown into the sea. “Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come but woe to the one by whom the stumbling-block comes!” (Matt 18:7)

As he throws the millstone the angel recites a hymn. The violence shown in the throwing of the boulder is a symbol of the violence by which the power of Rome will be overthrown and city obliterated. The hymn which follows describes a city which has become a ghost town: no music, no craftsmen’s skills or the grinding of corn (ironically described as ‘the sound of the millstone’), no more any light or the happy voices of the newly-wed. A big change from the days when its citizens were “the princes of the earth and all the nations were under [their] spell”.

Rome, of course, did not quite experience the utter destruction that was the fate of Jerusalem. However, the empire did collapse; “barbarians” from the north came in and took over. It seemed like the end of the world at the time but life went on - and the Christians, far from being wiped out, converted the invaders.

The vision of John moves (we are now in chap. 19) to a huge heavenly assembly singing in joy and triumph: “Alleluia! Victory and glory and power to our God!” This is the song of those who have come successfully through persecution and oppression. (The acclamation, ‘Alleluia’, which means “Praise the Lord!”, is used four times in this passage but is found in no other part of the New Testament.)

It is a hymn of thanksgiving that justice has been brought on the “famous prostitute, who corrupted the earth with her fornication”, another reference to Rome’s idolatrous and corrupt regime. God’s servants, who suffered so much, have been avenged. It is, of course, not a description of what is actually happening but is a prayer of hope for the future, a prayer that was indeed answered, and a boost for the morale of suffering Christians.

The passage ends with the fourth of the seven beatitudes scattered through the book: “Happy are those who are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb.” (A list of these ‘beatitudes’ is given in the reflection for Monday of Week 33.)

We too believe that evil will never have the last word. Truth and goodness and justice will eventually prevail. Let us pray, though, that we may so live our lives that we, too, will receive that invitation to join the wedding feast of the Lamb. All our lives are geared to making sure we do get that invitation. Nothing else matters!

Luke 21:20-28

Jesus continues his warnings of what is to come.

It is a blending of what is going to happen to Jerusalem and of the end of all things. The images are mainly biblical and apocalyptic, from Old Testament prophecies and not to be taken as an accurate description of what is actually going to happen some 40 years later. The sign that the end was near would be Jerusalem surrounded by armies accompanied by the “abomination that causes desolation” (cf. Matt 24:15). Nevertheless, it is true that Jerusalem was encircled by the armies of Rome. The safest place to be was not in the city, which was reduced to rubble, but in the surrounding hills.

Jesus is emphasising not so much the actual events but rather their cause - the faithlessness and corruption of so many for which destruction was the inescapable outcome. So he calls them the “days of retribution” or the “time of punishment”, not indicating God’s revenge but the natural result of evil and corruption, warnings of which the Scripture, especially the prophets, are full. See, for example, Isaiah 63:4; Jeremiah 5:29 and Hoseah 9:7. And especially Daniel 9:27: “For one week he [King Antiochus] will make a firm compact with the many [faithless Jews]. Half the week [three and a half years] he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation. On the temple wing shall be the horrible abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the horror.” The temple was desecrated by Antiochus from 167 to 165 BC. The “horrible abomination” perhaps refers to an inscription placed on the portal of the temple dedicating it to the Olympian Zeus. All of this, of course, was to be repeated. And, in many ways, has been repeated again and again. One thinks of the nude statue set up as a deity in the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris during the French Revolution.

What follows from verse 23 is more relevant to the destruction of Jerusalem. It will be a particularly difficult time for women who are pregnant or nursing. It will be a time of great distress.

Many will be cut down and others will be led away into captivity to pagan territories. (The Romans liked to parade their prisoners in a victory march in Rome.) The holy city itself, its Temple in ruins, will be trampled on by the Gentiles - a fate it still experiences.

This will happen “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”. For, as Paul indicates in his letter to the Romans (11:25-29), it is the Gentiles who have taken the place of the Jews as the bearers of the Good News and the builders of the Kingdom. But Paul believed that the age of the Gentiles would only end with the return of Israel and the reconciliation of all in Christ Jesus as Lord. It is an indefinite period and it is still in process. Our God is an all-inclusive God. And a patient God.

Finally, Jesus speaks of various cataclysmic and apocalyptic signs to signal the end of time. They are typical biblical phenomena and not meant to be taken as exact foretelling of events. They conclude with Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man riding on a cloud coming with great power and glory. It is not intended to fill people with fear and trembling, except perhaps those who have lived wicked lives.

But for the disciples, the loyal followers of Jesus, it is a time to “stand up straight and raise your heads, for your redeeming is near at hand”. As we saw in yesterday’s Gospel, sufferings and tribulations are part and parcel of living the Christian life to the full. Our message and our vision is a ‘sign of contradiction’, a beacon of light to many and to others a threat to be radically uprooted.

But for those who have tried to live by the vision and values of the Gospel, for those who have tried to seek and find Jesus in all the people and events of their lives, who have spent hours with him in intimate dialogue, it is the time of their final liberation, a time when there will be no more sorrows, no more tears, no more hardships, no more disappointments. Rather, they will be entering an unbroken time of love and intimacy, of freedom and peace, of joy and consolation.

So, as we approach the end of another liturgical year, we do so on an upbeat note.

Week 34 | Friday

Revelation 20:1-4,11-21:2; Luke 21:29-33

Judgement and the New Jerusalem: today we have a powerful vision of the end time described in highly symbolic language, which is not to be taken literally. Here we need to be very careful to go to the central meaning of what is being said and not get carried away - either positively or negatively - by the vivid images.

We can divide the passage into five sections, corresponding to each paragraph:

1. John sees an angel come down from heaven, that is, God’s dwelling place (which, of course, is not a place as God is everywhere). In his hand, the angel carries the key of the Abyss and a huge chain. The Abyss was conceived as an underground place where the armies of demons lived. The Greek word (abussos) means “very deep” or “bottomless” and is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew word for the primeval deep (mentioned in Genesis as the beginning of the Creation story).

The dragon, the “primeval serpent”, the one who tempted our first parents, Satan himself, is overpowered by the angel and chained in the Abyss for a thousand years. Normally in the Old Testament dragons symbolise the enemies of God and his people. They feature regularly in the mythology of many ancient peoples. (In Chinese culture, however, they tend to have a positive image of power.)

Satan is shut up by the angel in the Abyss for a millennium, one thousand years. The 1,000 years is not to be taken literally; it simply means a long and indefinite period of time. (See note below for different understandings of this millennium.) At the end of that time, Satan will be released again for a short while. Such is the tenacity of Satan that he can become active again. It is a message of warning that no one can feel complacent about being ever totally free from his wiles.

2. The scene now shifts to the elect. There are thrones on which sit those who have the power to judge. Are they the 24 elders mentioned earlier or the 12 Apostles, whom Jesus foretold would be judges? In the teaching following the failure of the rich man to become a disciple of Jesus, he says to his disciples: “Truly, I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28).

Also present are those who had been beheaded, that is, those who had died the death of a martyr for their witness to the faith and for proclaiming the Gospel message. It is said that those of a higher social status were executed by beheading while more brutal forms of execution were reserved for those lower in the social hierarchy (e.g. crucifixion).

Among the elect are also those who refused to worship the beast (that is, the emperor) or his image. They did not have the emperor’s brand-mark on their foreheads. In other words, they were no slaves of his, they did not belong to him. (Were Christians who had agreed to pay obeisance to the emperor’s image marked with a brand to free them from further persecution? If so, such a brand would have been a mark of shame in the eyes of faithful Christians.)

Instead, because of their martyr’s death, they entered a new life and reigned with Christ their Lord for 1,000 years. (In the following verse, not part of our reading, the rest of the dead did not rise until the 1,000 years was ended.)

The Jerusalem Bible makes the following comment here:

One interpretation makes this ‘resurrection’ of the martyrs symbolise the recovery of the Church after the Roman persecution; the ‘reign of a thousand years’ is then the period of the kingdom of Christ on earth from the end of persecution (the fall of Rome) to the Last Judgement. According to Augustine and others who follow him, the ‘reign of a thousand years’ is to be reckoned from Christ’s resurrection and the ‘first resurrection’ is baptism.

A literal interpretation of this verse was widespread in the early Church: after the first resurrection of the martyrs, Christ was to return to reign on earth with his faithful for a thousand years. This literal millenarianism was censured.

(For further comment on the ‘millennium’ see note at the end of this reflection.)

3. We now move to the judgement of all the dead (v.11ff). God is seen sitting on his great white throne, the seat of judgement. Earth and sky have vanished - in the presence of God’s awesome majesty they become as nothing. The dead from every stratum of society are gathered there in front of the throne. The records of their lives, by which they are judged, are opened. There is more than one book, suggesting one for the righteous and another for the wicked.

And there is the book of life. Such a record is first mentioned in Exodus. It was a list of all citizens in the kingdom community. To have one’s name removed from the book indicated loss of citizenship. So the book of life here lists the elect, those who really belong to the Kingdom. And they will be judged on how they have responded to the call of the Gospel (cf. Rom 2:6; 1 Pet 1:17).

4. All of the dead are present. They come from the two traditional abodes of the dead: one is the sea and the other is Death and Hades, which were understood to be under the earth (remember, the earth is conceived as flat, not curved as we know it). Hades is the Greek name for the place of the dead and more or less corresponds to the Hebrew sheol.

These places of the dead are now emptied as all appear before their God to be judged according to the way they lived. We need to qualify this statement to avoid misunderstandings. It does not mean that our activities have a value all their own so that we, so to speak, earn our salvation or our entry into God’s kingdom and that God is obliged to “reward” us.

Scripture makes it very clear that all the good we do does not originate from us but is God working in and through us. If our lives are full of good works, it is because we have opened our hearts to God and taken him into our hearts so that we become transformed through his love working in and through us. In the Eucharistic liturgy, Weekday Preface IV reads: “You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness, but makes us grow in your grace through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul emphasises this very strongly, especially in his letter to the Romans.

It would also be wrong to imagine God keeping a credit and debit ledger of our lives and that, provided we end up with a plus rather than a minus, we will “go to heaven”. God is not an accountant; there is not a ledger with some entries in black and others in red. It is clear from the Gospel that God does not work like that. A life lived for many years away from God can be turned round at any time, even at the very end. God sees us as we are at the moment he calls us to him. A bad life can end very well; similarly, a good life can end very badly (cf. the parable of the Lost Son, Luke 15 or the “good thief” on the cross beside Jesus).

Death and Hades are then thrown into the lake of fire. Punishment by fire is common in ancient Jewish writings. Although the designation gehenna is not used here, it seems it is what John is referring to (see Matt 5:22). ‘Gehenna’ originally was the site of a cultic shrine where human sacrifices were offered. It was a deep ravine south of Jerusalem (the ‘Valley of [the Sons of] Hinnom’). During the reign of the wicked kings Ahaz and Manasseh, human sacrifices to the Ammonite god Molech were offered there. Josiah desecrated the valley because of the pagan worship. It subsequently became a sort of perpetually burning city dump (like the infamous ‘Smoky Mountain’ in Manila) and later became to be equated with the “hell” of final judgement in apocalyptic literature.

The meaning of the phrase then is that, after the judgement, death loses all its power. Also into this lake of fire go all those whose names are not found in the book of life. By their own choice, they do not belong to the Kingdom.

5. Finally (21:1ff), John sees “a new heaven and a new earth”. This is a way of describing the new way of life we will experience face to face with God and Jesus Christ. It is an existence, as Paul tells us, where we are totally free from decay and corruption and are renewed and transformed in the presence of God’s glory. The whole of creation will one day be freed from the dominance of corruption, renewed and transformed by the glory of God, Rom 8:19ff. It is also an existence which is totally beyond our powers to conceive. The less we say about it the better!

And “the sea was no more”, because the sea is the home of the dragon, Satan. As in the time of the Exodus, the sea will now draw back, not for a while but for ever before the triumphant advance of the New Israel.

What now exists is the holy city, the new and eternal Jerusalem. This is the title for the gathering of all those who have faithfully followed Christ and are now united to him. She is described as a bride, beautifully adorned for her husband, God. This is an image found among the prophets, e.g. Isaiah and Hosea. It speaks of the marvellously intimate relationship between God and his people, those who really belong to him. See, too, Jesus’ parable of the wedding banquet (Matt 22:2-14).

The reading is speaking of what is in store for those who have been faithful, in spite of suffering and even losing their lives, to Christ and his Gospel. On the other hand, the powers of evil are overcome for ever and those who, by their own choice, became their servants are lost for ever.

It is not for us to speculate just how all this takes place, still less to think that the images in Revelation correspond in any literal way to the reality. It is for us to concentrate on the lives we are living now and to seek, find and respond to Jesus as we come in contact with him at every moment of our day. Then we can leave the future safely in his hands. He will take care of us. “Do not be afraid,” is the message always on his lips and “I am with you always”.

The millennium (from the Latin mille, “thousand”, and annus, “year”) is taken literally by some as 1,000 actual years, while others interpret it metaphorically as a long but undetermined period of time. There are three basic approaches to the subject of the millennium:

Amillennialism: millennium describes the present reign of the souls of deceased believers with Christ in heaven. The present form of God’s kingdom will be followed by Christ’s return, the general resurrection, the final judgement and Christ’s continuing reign over the perfect kingdom on the new earth in the eternal state.

Premillennialism: the present form of God’s kingdom is moving towards a grand climax when Christ will return, the “first resurrection” (cf. Rev 20:5) will occur and his kingdom will find expression in a literal, visible reign of peace and righteousness on the earth in space-time history. After the final resurrection, the last judgement and the renewal of the heavens and the earth, this future, temporal kingdom will merge into the eternal kingdom, and the Lord will reign for ever on the new earth.

Postmillennialism: the world will eventually be Christianised, resulting in a long period of peace and prosperity called the millennium. This future period will close with Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgement and the eternal state. (cf. NIV Study Bible)

Many, however, will take the “millennium” as something purely symbolical. When people die, they go straight to God to be with him forever or, if they have so chosen, to be separated from him. In a situation where there is no time and only a Now, all will “arrive” simultaneously no matter when in temporal time they leave this earth, so the Final Judgement is not a matter of past, present or future. Again, these are matters which are best left to the field of speculation.

Luke 21:29-33

Jesus continues his admonitions about readiness for the future. The key is to watch out for the telling signs.

Just as with the fig tree or any tree, the emerging buds of green indicate that summer is on the way. When the things Jesus has been mentioning are seen to happen, terrible as some of them seem to be, they are in fact the sign of summer. “The Kingdom of God is near.” On other occasions, Jesus had said that the Kingdom was already present but the Kingdom can be seen in different ways. The Kingdom is present wherever the values of the Gospel are being lived but it will not be fully realised until the very end when all are gathered in Him.

“This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” When Jesus says that “this present generation” will not have passed away until all this takes place, it is not to say that Jesus’ final coming will happen in the lifetime of his hearers, as some imagined but rather that, with his own suffering and death, the new and eternal dispensation which he inaugurates with the Kingdom will be under way. Ironically, the fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecy is inaugurated by the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Temple. It inaugurates a new presence of God in the world, a presence in “spirit and in truth”.

However, Jesus’ words could also mean that the Jewish people as a race (here referred to as “this generation”) will continue to exist till the end of time, to the final coming of Jesus.

Lastly, the world in which we live will one day disappear, but the words of Jesus, words of Truth and Life will be forever valid, because they represent a vision of life and those timeless values which we understand as emanating from God and to which every single human being is innately called.

As we come to the end of the Church year it is a time for us to make our decision whether we want to belong to the kingdom that Jesus is inaugurating and not only to belong but also to make its spread our life’s work. Then, no matter when he comes to call us, we are ready.

Week 34 | Saturday

Revelation 22:1-7; Luke 21:34-36

We come today to our final reading from Revelation. It is also the last day of the last week in the liturgical year. Tomorrow we begin again with the season of Advent and a new liturgical year.

Today’s reading contains part of the final vision of the new Jerusalem, that place or state of existence which we will experience in a face to face and never-ending unity with the Father, the Son and the Spirit. The vision describes that life allegorically in terms of a city with buildings, streets, rivers, trees and fountains.

It begins with a Trinitarian image. A river of life rises from the throne of God and of the Lamb and flows down the city’s main thoroughfare. The river of living water is understood to be the Spirit, the mutual love of Father and Son flowing out from them and giving life to us.

Jesus had told the Samaritan woman at the well: “Those who drink of the water I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life” (John 4:14). Again, Jesus had said: “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38) and “One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out” (John 19:34). The water of life flows out from the Father and the heart of the Son through the Spirit and into our hearts.

Nourished by the river, the trees of life are on each bank of the river. Indirectly, through their fruit, they are also a source of life. They remind us of the tree of life that was in the garden of Eden, a tree that God would not allow our first parents to eat for fear they might live forever (Gen 2:9; 3:22,24). There are also here echoes of a passage in Ezekiel where he describes life flowing from the Temple, the place where God dwells. He says: “On the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of tree for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing (Ezek 47:12).

The fertility of the trees is indicated by their having crops every month of the year. And their leaves are the “cure for the pagans”, for “the healing of the nations”, that is, they bring about the healing, the conversion of the nations back to God, their source of life and being. No longer will there be any suffering, sickness or death for anyone. The message of the Kingdom is directed to every single person.

“The ban will be lifted”, “Nothing accursed will be found there any more”. That is to say, there will no longer be any occasion for sin nor will anyone experience God’s anger because of sin. Faced with the overwhelming and irresistible goodness and sweetness of God, absolutely nothing else will be even remotely desirable. Sin and temptation lose all meaning here; there will be no need for commandments or prohibitions.

The throne of God and of the Lamb, now replacing the former Temple, will be in the very centre of the city and the citizens of the new Jerusalem will see God face to face, a privilege denied even to Moses in his lifetime.

In the Old Testament, it was traditionally believed that no one could look on the face of God and live and the Holy of Holies in the Temple was off limits to all except the high priest once a year. That is now changed here for all those who belong to God, who have his name marked on their foreheads. In the bible, the name is much more than a label; it signifies the character and personality of its owner. It is something very special then to be marked with the name of Christ. The blessed now belong to him for ever; nothing can ever separate them.

The blessed now live in the everlasting light of God. There is no more darkness; there is no need for the sun, the moon or any artificial source of light. They live now for ever in the light of God’s glory and beauty.

Finally, the angel, God’s messenger, confirms that all that John has written is both true and will come to pass. The same Spirit that inspired the prophets of old has sent his servants, including the writer, to make known to God’s people what is going to happen.

Then, in the background as it were, is heard the voice of Jesus himself: “Very soon now, I shall be with you again.” These are the consoling words of the Lord to those who are suffering for their faith and wonder how long the Lord will take before he comes to vindicate and deliver them.

The passage concludes with the sixth of the seven beatitudes in Revelation: “Happy are those who treasure the prophetic message of this book.”

As was said at the beginning, Revelation is a strange and difficult book for people of our times to read with understanding. Yet it is so full of beautiful images and ideas. It carries a message of hope for people who are living in times of darkness and uncertainty.

It encourages us to look forward to that day when we will come face to face with our God, when we share the triumph of the Lamb over sickness and death, when the life of the Spirit is poured over us, when we all come together in a world where there is no more pain, no more tears, no more tragedy and despair, when there is no more sin or temptation but only pure happiness with God and all our loved ones.

As was also said, we need to read this book with care and not make it say what it has no intention of saying by reading into the text and its images interpretations that the author never intended. It is a book written at a very specific period of time for people living their Christian lives in very special circumstances. Apart from reminding the readers of the life of pure happiness to come after death, it has no interest in commenting on future events. It is not a prophetic book in that sense.

At the same time, like all books of the New and Old Testaments we have been reading over the past two years, it has a message for people in every age and every culture. It is the Word of God.

Thanks be to God for the gift of his Word.

Luke 21:34-36

Our final reading from Luke (and this Church year) continues the messages of warning that he has been giving during the week.

The warning is not to become immersed in a life of self-centred indulgence and hedonism nor to be overcome by many worries and anxieties. It is these two things which can dominate the lives of so many: a combination of escapism from what is difficult and a running to activities where happiness is confused with pleasure.

The “great day” is going to close in like a trap - quickly and without previous warning. “The day I speak of will come upon all who dwell on the face of the earth.” Of course, for every single one of us, that “great day” in practice is the day on which we will be called individually to face our Lord and Creator.

(One might ask, What do we do while we are waiting for the rest of the world to join us? Perhaps we should remember that ‘on the other side’ it is an eternal Now, with no past or future. It is like going to the hub of a wheel from any part of the rim. All converge together in the same place.)

So we are warned to be permanently on the watch. To pray constantly for strength to avoid what is bad for us and that we may be able to stand secure when we come face to face with the Son of Man. In some ways, the demands are very simple, although we find them difficult at times - showing our fidelity to God by a loving concern for the well-being of every other person, but especially those most in need. “As often as you did it to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did it to ME.”

Whatever the circumstances of our life we look forward in confidence to the ultimate victory of God, of Jesus and of the Kingdom. As has been said here more than once, the best preparation for that unpredictable moment of leaving this world is to live as fully as we can in the presence of our always-present God. Let us seek him, find him and respond to him in every single person and in every single experience of our daily lives.

“O Lord, grant that all my thoughts, intentions, actions and responses may directed solely to your love and service this day and every day.” Amen.